0  *  J 

r— • *C_X 

>IM<^ 


..Qf-CAHl 


^STUDIES 


American  History 


A  SURVEY  OF  AMERICAN  HISTORY 

SOURCE  EXTRACTS 


BY 

-,,  .A..M. 


LINCOLN,  NEBRASKA,  U.  S.  A.  , 

J.  H.  MILLER 

PUBLISHED 


Copyrighted,  1898, 

BY 
J.  H.  MILLER. 


PRESS  OF 

JACOB  NORTH  *  COMPANY. 
LINCOLN,  NEB. 


tin.*.) 

CV&s 


CONTENTS. 

PAGE. 

Introduction i. 

The  Founding  of  the  Colonies 1 

The    Development   of    Union    Among  the 

Colonies 25 

Causes  of  the  American  Revolution 47 

Steps  in  the  Formation  of  the  United  States 

Constitution >. 71 

Interpretation  of  the  Constitution;  Nation- 
ality   99 

Slavery  in  the  United  States,  1 123 

Slavery  in  the  United  States,  II 147 

The  Civil  War  and  Reconstruction  171 

A  Study  in  American  Foreign  Relations  and 

Diplomacy 195 

A  Study  in  Economic  History  219 


220286 


AMERICAN  HISTORY  STUDIES. 
INTRODUCTION. 

METHODS  of  teaching  history  are  in  proc- 
ess of  transformation.  With  the 
change  in  method  comes  the  demand 
for  new  books;  so  if  anyone  asks  the  reason 
for  this  little  collection  of  sources  on  Ameri- 
can history,  the  answer  is  believed  to  be  found 
in  this  change.  The  compiler  is  pleased  to 
know  that  these  studies  have  been  received 
with  favor  by  many  progressive  teachers.  He 
feels  that  the  lack  of  proper  and  available  ma- 
terial is  one  reason  that  the  "laboratory 
method"  has  not  found  more  ready  acceptance 
in  the  past  by  a  larger  number  of  teachers. 
In  the  belief  that  this  collection  will  in  part 
supply  the  demand,  it  is  now  sent  forth  to  the 
school-world  in  this  more  permanent  form. 

In  many  Normal  schools  and  in  some  high 
schools  brief  reviews  are  demanded  and  given 
In  such  cases  it  seems  to  the  writer  to  be  a 
waste  of  time  to  hurry  through  some  text 
book,  repeating  the  work  that  has  been  done 
in  the  grades,  in  perchance  even  a  less  efficient 
way.  It  is  hoped  and  believed  that  the  fol- 
lowing ten  '  *  studies ' '  help  to  solve  the  problem 
of  such  reviews.  A  few  suggestions  are  made 
in  regard  to  the  method  of  handling  this  ma- 
terial. A  note-book  should  be  in  the  hand  of 
every  pupil.  It  is  desirable  to  have  this  made 
up  of  loose  sheets  of  paper,  perforated,  so  that 
they  may  be  bound  together,  or  removed  and 
changed  in  place  at  the  will  of  the  pupil.  A 
cover  should  be  made  or  purchased  in  which 
to  keep  and  preserve  these  sheets. 


VI.  INTRODUCTION. 

The  next  and  most  important  matter  is  to 
bring:  the  students  into  contact  with  the  origi- 
nal material  as  often  and  as  completely  as  possi- 
ble. For  this  purpose,  of  course  the  "  sources" 
must  be  accessible,  and  as  far  as  possible  in 
the  hands  of  every  pupil.  It  should  be  noted 
here  again  that  it  is  not  expected  that  the 
larger  part  even  of  the  facts  of  history  can  be 
obtained  from  these  sources,  so  a  good  narra- 
tive text  must  be  at  hand,  and  in  constant  use. 
The  "sources'"  are  to  be  used  for  the  purpose 
of  illustrating  how  the  narrative  history  was 
formed;  but  more  especially  for  the  mental 
training  which  maybe  obtained  from  their  use. 
'1  he  same  document  or  illustrative  extract 
should  be  in  the  hands  of  every  member  of  the 
class  that  each  may  have  the  benefit  of  the 
criticism  of  all. 

With  the  material  then  in  the  hands  of  the 
class,  the  first  question  will  be  to  determine  as 
far  as  possible  its  value.  To  do  th  s  necessitates 
that  we  find  cut  whether  the  document  is  what  it 
purports  to  be;  then  to  determine  whether  we 
have  a  correct  copy  of  it.  Next  we  must  find 
out  who  wrote  it,  and  under  what  circum- 
s  ances.  Finally,  the  character  of  the  author 
will  come  under  discussion.  Did  he  have  the 
opportunity  to  know  ?  Was  he  able,  honest,  ed- 
ucated? Was  he  writing  for  parti-an  ends,  or 
did  he  attempt  to  tell  the  exact  truth?  These 
are  a  few  of  the  tests  we  must  apply  to  our 
material,  if  we  are  to  know  its  real  value. 
Perhaps  the  most  important  question  of  all  will 
be,  did  the  writer  know  of  his  own  personal 
knowledge,  or  did  he  gain  his  information 
from  hearsay?  After  we  have  determined  the 


INTRODUCTION  VII. 

value  of  our  "source,"  we  next  proceed  1o 
analyze  it,  and  to  find  out  just  what  the  writer 
meant.  Here  we  must  notice  the  use  and 
meaning  of  words  at  the  time  the  document 
was  written,  and  no'.e  any  changes  at  the  pres- 
ent time,  so  that  we  may  get  just  the  idea  in- 
tended to  be  conveyed.  A  series  of  questions 
will  often  greatly  help  in  this  analysis.  The 
ones  given  in  the  text  are  only  intended  to  be 
suggestive,  and  so  may  be  supplemented  by 
others,  or  limited  by  omissions. 

The  next  step  will  be  to  classify  and  arrange 
our  knowledge.  In  the  writer's  opinion  this 
is  the  hardest,  as  well  as  the  most  important, 
part  of  the  work.  A  logical  arrangement 
must  be  insisted  on.  A  careful  outline  must 
be  prepared,  containing  a  page  reference  to 
every  point  in  the  notes.  It  is  only  by  this 
careful  preparation  that  accuracy  in  thinking 
or  in  writing  can  ever  be  secured.  When  this 
work  is  completed,  then  the  last  step  in  the 
plan  can  be  taken  with  great  ease  and  facility, 
for  then  the  whole  mind  and  strength  can  be 
concentrated  on  the  composition.  The  mem- 
ory under  such  circumstances  is  not  burdened 
with  carrying  all  the  details.  They  are  indi- 
cated in  the  outline  and  in  the  notes  to  which 
it  refers.  It  goes  without  saying  that  every 
piece  of  student  work  when  completed  should 
be  tested  by  comparing  it  with  the  best  narra- 
tive texts,  or  with  the  teacher's  knowledge. 

One  final  idea  should  be  suggested.  Each 
of  these  studies  covers  many  years  of  time. 
The  evolution  of  the  topic  has  been  kept 
in  mind  in  making  the  extracts.  In  work- 
ing up  the  material  then  into  papers  and 


Viil.  INTRODUCTION. 

reports,  the  teacher  should  see  that  the  pupil 
has  noted  and  understood  the  changes  and  the 
reasons  therefor.  For  example,  if  the  topic- 
be  the  "Economic  History'1  of  the  United 
States,  great  pains  should  be  taken  to  call  the 
attention  to  the  changes  in  belief  in  regard  to 
the  tariff,  or  internal  improvements.  Let 
every  effort  be  bent  to  discovering  the  causes 
of  these  changes.  If  Webster  cease  to  be  a 
free-trader,  the  reason  for  the  change  should 
be  found  if  possible.  If  the  South  oppose  in- 
ternal improvements,  let  the  cause  be  un- 
earthed. 

These  studies,  then,  are  committed  to  my 
fellow  teachers  in  the  hope  that  they  may  aid 
them  a  little  in  solving  the  difficult  problem 
of  how  to  get  our  children  to  understand  their 
own  history,  and  to  get  such  an  understand- 
ing in  such  a  way  as  to  make  them  men- 
tally and  morally  stronger,  that  they  may  be 
better  prepared  to  meet  the*  exceedingly  diffi- 
cult questions  which  will  confront  the  coming 
generation.  The  writer  has  no  extravagant 
ideas  or  expectations  in  regard  to  the  trans- 
forming power  of  these  studies.  He  simply 
hopes  and  believes  that  they  will  be  found  to 
be  an  aid. 

H.  W.  C. 

November  25,  1898. 

NOTE.— It  will  be  seen  that  the  following  material 
is  merely  a  reprint  of  the  articles  that  appeared  in  the 
North  Western  Monthly  for  the  year  1897-98;  many 
references  that  are  not  appropriate  for  the  present 
purpose  find  their  explanation  in  this  fact. 


American  History  Studies 


No  1. 


SEPTEMBER,  1897. 


THE 


FOUNDING  OF  THE  COLONIES. 


SELECTIONS  MADE  FROM  THE  SOURCES 


H.  W.  CALDWELL, 

UNIVERSITY  OF  NEBRASKA. 


J.  H.  MILLER,  Publisher, 
LINCOLN,  NEBRASKA. 


PUBLISHED  MONTHLY,  EXCEPT  JULY  AND  AUGUST. 

Entered  as  second-class  matter  at  the  Post  Office,  Lincoln,  Nebraska, 
U.  S.  A. 


AMERICAN   HISTORY  STUDIES. 


EDITOR'S  PREFACE. 

little  space  will  be  given  this  year 
to  narrative  text,  or  to  method.     Copi- 
ous   extracts    will    be    made    from    the 
sources.     The  aim  will  be  to  choose  the  ex- 
tracts in  such  a  way  that  they  may  to  a  great 
extent  tell  their  own  story.     In  the  ten  num- 
bers of  the  MONTHLY  it  is  intended  to  illustrate 
ten  phases  of  American  history  by  calling  in 
contemporaries  to  speak  for  themselves.      Of 
course  these  extracts  are  expected  to  do  liltle 
else  than  whet  the  appetite  for  more.     It   is 
hoped  that  the  spirit  of  original  research  may 
be  intensified  in  this  way  to  such  an  extent 
that  the  reader  may  wish  to  go  to  the  more 
"vtended  compilations  of  sources.      Professor 
JUart's  new  work,  "American  History  as  Told 
by  Contemporaries,"  in  four  volumes,  will  meet 
the   want   of   many.     Many   extracts    may    be 
found  in  the  MONTHLY  which  could  not  have 
been  laid  before  its  readers  had  not  this  com- 
pilation   been    available,      IS'iles'    "Document t\ 
Illustrative  of  the  American  Revolution"  is  also 
a  valuable  and  convenient  collection  of  sources 
bearing  on  the  American  Revolution.     Profes- 
sor Woodburn's  revision  of  Johnston's  "Ameri- 
can Orations"  has  increased  the  usefulness  of 
that  valuable  work.     It  now  consists  of  four 
volumes  of  the  best  speeches  on  all  political 
topics    made*    by    American    statesmen.      The 
reader  of  these  articles  will  thus  recognize  that 
they  contain  only  an  insignificant  fraction  of 
the  available  material,   but  it  is   hoped   that 
these  papers  may  throw  light  oil  a  few  of  the 


FOUNDING    OF    THE    COLONIES  3 

many  great  questions  in  the  development  of  the 
life  and  thought  of  the  American  people.  May 
we  not  at  least  hope  that  those  who  cannot 
have  access  to  the  more  elaborate  works,  or 
those  whose  time  is  too  limited  to  use  them, 
may  find  something  to  aid  them  in  these  briefer 
extracts? 

To  get  the  greatest  value  from  this  work  the 
writer  believes  that  definite,  systematic  work 
is  necessary.  On  the  whole,  the  plan  outlined 
in  the  September  and  October  numbers  of  the 
JOURNAL  of  last  year  is  believed  to  be  a  de- 
sirable one.  Questions  will  accompany  each 
paper  this  year.  They  will  aim  to  direct  the 
thought  to  the  most  important  points  in  the 
extracts,  and  to  bring  out  the  hidden  meanings. 
The  new  'reader  may  perhaps  understand  the 
method  from  a  few  explanatory  sentences.  In 
the  first  place,  a  written  answer  should  be  pre- 
pared for  every  question,  accompanied  by  the 
page  reference  to  the  proof  for  the  answer. 
Then  an  outline  should  be  prepared  arranging 
in  proper  and  logical  order  the  knowledge 
which  has  been  accumulated  in  answering  the 
questions.  This  second  step  is  followed  by  the 
third,  which  consists  in  writing  a  paper  follow- 
ing the  "outline"  and  based  on  the  answers  to 
the  questions  for  the  "material"  or  matter 
which  it  contains.  In  brief,  we  first  gather 
our  "material,"  then  make  an  "outline,"  and 
finally  write  our  "narrative"  history.  It  is  be- 
lieved that  those  who  will  conscientiously  fol- 
low this  plan  will  by  the  end  of  the  year  have 
gained  much  in  power,  in  knowledge  of  method, 
and  in  general  culture  and  information. 

More  or  less  explanatory  matter  will  be  in- 
troduced into  the  extracts,  but  in  all  cases 
it  will  be  inclosed  in  brackets  [  ].  The  editor 
will,  however,  in  general  leave  the  contempo- 
rary writers  to  tell  their  own  story.  Last  year 
it  seemed  necessary  to  argue  f<  r  ih  '  ut-e  01  tut* 


4  AMERICAN    HISTORY    STUDIES. 

sources.  In  Nebraska  at  least  the  acceptance 
of  the  principle  is  now  so  nearly  universal  that 
it  would  be  like  carrying  a  feather  bed  down- 
stairs at  a  fire  to  elaborate  further  on  the  sub- 
ject. The  only  question  now  is  to  make  the 
sources  available  to  the  teachers  and  students 
of  the  state.  Time  will  determine  the  success 
of  this  experiment. 

Teachers  who  wish  credit  in  the  University  of 
Nebraska  may  secure  it  by  keeping  a  note-book, 
and  at  the  end  of  the  year  submitting  it  for  in- 
spection. »  The  note-book  should  also  show  the 
time  given  to  the  work  from  day  to  day.  The 
amount  of  credit  will,  of  course,  vary  with  the 
quantity  and  quality  of  work  done. 


THE  FOUNDING  OF  THE  COLONIES. 

The  planting  of  the  colonies  may  be  said  in 
general  to  extend  from  1600  to  1700  .  By  the 
latter  date  they  were  firmly  established  and  the 
lines  of  their  movement  well  determined.  The 
social,*  religious,  political,  educational,  and  in- 
dustrial life  must  all  be  considered  in  our  study. 
Also  the  purposes  of  colonization  and  the  char- 
acter of  the  emigrants,  as  well  as  the  Indians, 
are  factors  in  our  study.  Selections,  therefore, 
have  been  made  to  illustrate  each  of  these  prob- 
lems. 

1.  Reasons  for  colonization. 

Then  shall  her  Majesties  dominions  be  enlarged,  her  high- 
nesse  ancient  titles  justly  confirmed,  all  odious  idlenesse  from 
this  our  Realm  utterly  banished,  divers  decayed  towns  re- 
paired, and  many  poor  and  needy  persons  relieved,  and 
estates  of  such  as  now  live  in  want  shall  be  embettred,  the 
ignorant  and  barbarous  idolaters  taught  to  know  Christ,  the 
innocent  defended  from  their  bloodie  tyrannicle  neighbors, 
the  diabolicale  custome  of  sacrificing  humane  creatures  abol- 
ished. .  .  .—1582.  Sir  Geo.  Peckham  in  Hakluyt; 
Voyages,  etc. 


POUNDING    OF    THE    COLONIES  5 

.     .     ,    ayming  at  the  glory  of  God,  the  propagation  of  the 
gospell  of  Christ,  the  conversion  of  the  Indians,  and  the  enlarg- 
iiieut  of  the  King's  Majesty's  dominions  in  America.    .    .    . 
—Hart,  I,  p.  190. 

2.  The  emigrants:   Class,  laws  concerning. 

1582. — Sir  Geo.  Peckham  proposed  to  get 
rid  of 

a  great  number  of  men  which  do  now  live  idely  at  home,  and 
are  burthnous,  chargeable,  and  to  the  common  annoy  of  the 
whole  state. — Hakluyt. 

1637. — No  persons  being  Subsidy  Men  [liable  for  taxes]  or 
of  the  value  of  Subsidy  Men  shall  emigrant. — Proclamation, 
Chas.  I. 

You  are  to  take  .  .  .  such  a  course  .  .  .  that 
vagrants  and  others  who  remain  here  noxious  and  unprofit- 
able, may  be  soe  transplanted  to  the  generall  advantage  of 
the  publique  as  well  as  the  particular  commoditie  of  our 
Forraine  Plantacons. — 1660.  Instructions  for  the  Councill  for 
Forraigne  Plantacons.  From  Documents  relating  to  New 
York  History. 

And  probably  many  vagrants  agreed  with 
Charles  II.,  for,  in  1679,  two  bright  Dutch  trav- 
elers tell  us  of  a  "Godless  Emigrant  Ship" 
bound  for  New  York. 

In  fine  it  was  a  Babel.  I  have  never  in  my  life  heard  of 
such  a  disorderly  ship.  It  was  confusion  without  end.  I 
have  never  been  in  a  ship  where  there  was  so  much  vermin, 
which  was  communicated  to  us.  ...  There  were  some 
bunks  and  clothes  as  full  as  if  they  had  been  sown.  Bui  * 
must  forbear. — Long  Island  Hist.  Society,  Memoirs. 

On  the  other  side,  hear  Rev.  Francis  Higgin- 
son,  1629: 

The  passage  was  through  God's  blessing  .  .  .  short 
and  speedy — 6  weeks  and  3  days,  healthful  to  our  passengers, 
being  freed  from  the  great  contagion  of  the  scurvie  and  other 
maledictions,  which  in  other  passages  .  .  .  had  taken 
away  the  lives  of  many  ;  and  withal,  a  pious  and  Christian- 
like  passage  ;  for  I  suppose  passengers  will  seldom  find  a 
company  of  more  religious,  honest  and  kynd  seamen  than  we 
had.  We  constantly  served  God  morning  and  evening  by 
reading  and  expounding  a  chapter,  singing,  and  prayer. 
And  the  Sabbath  was  solemnly  kept  by  adding  .  •  • 


6  AMERICAN    HISTORY    STUDIES. 

preaching  twice  and  catechising.  And  in  our  great  need  we 
kept  2  solemn  fasts  .  .  .  Let  all  that  love  and  use  fast- 
ing and  prayer  take  notice  that  it  is  as  prevailable  by  sea  as 
by  land,  whensoever  it  is  faithfully  performed. — Quoted  in 
Hart,  I,  p.  194,  from  Thomas  Hutchinsori1  s  Collections. 

3.  The  Indian*. 
Peckham,  1582,  says: 

All  Savages  .  .  .  as  soon  as  they  shall  begin  but  a  little 
to  taste  of  civility  will  take  marvellous  delight  in  any  garment, 
be  it  never  so  simple  .  .  .  and  will  take  incredible  pains 
for  such  a  trifle.  .  .  .  Now  to  the  end  it  may  appear 
that  this  voyage  is  not  undertaken  altogether  for  the  peculiar 
commodity  of  ourselves  ...  it  shall  fall  out  in  proof 
that  ...  if  in  respect  of  all  the  commodities  they  can 
yeeldeus  .  .  .  that  they  should  but  receive  this  only  bene- 
fit of  Christianity,  they  were  more  than  fully  recompenced. 
.  .  .  Wee  got  for  trifles  neer  1100  Bever  skinnes,  100 
Martins,  and  neer  as  many  Ottus. — Captain  J.  Smith  in  "A 
Description  of  New  England." 

Governor  Winslow,  1621,  says  they  were 
"very  trusty,  quick  of  apprehension,  ripe-witted, 
just." 

Penn,  in  1683,  testifies  that 

he  will  deserve  the  name  of  wise  who  outwits  them  in  any 
treaty  about  a  thing  they  understand.  .  .  .  Do  not 
aliiise  them,  but  let  them  have  justice  and  you  win  them. — 
Quoted  from  Janney's  Life  of  Penn. 

4.  Mechanism  of  colonization. 

The  colonization  companies  in  England  were 
certainly  rare  enthusiasts.  It  is  amusing  to 
notice  in  the  proceedings  of  the  Council  for 
Kew  England,  1622,  the  following  item: 

It  is  agreed  that  yc  Councell  meet  the  Morrow  ...  at 
Sr.  Ferd:  Gorges  Lodgings  for  conferring  about  ye  forme  of 
a  patent  betweene  7  and  8  o'clock  in  ye  morneing. 

The  royal  generosity  of  the  kings  in  giving 
away  continents  is  well  illustrated  by  this  ac- 
count of  how  the  above  company  disposed  of 
New  England,  1623: 

There  were  presented  to  the  Kings  most  excellent  Ma*'e  a 
Plot  of  all  the  Coasts  and  lands  of  New  England  devided 


FOUNDING    OF    THE    COLONIES  7 

into  twenty  parts  each  part  conteyning  two  shares,  And 
twenty  lotts  conteyning  the  said  double  shares  made  upp  in 
little  bales  of  waxe,  And  the  names  of  twenty  Pattentees  by 
whom  these  lotts  were  to  be  drawne. — From  Proceedings 
American  Antiquarian  Society. 

Having  given  the  lands  to  the  companies, 
these  must  settle  them.  The  proposal  of  the 
proprietors  of  Carolina  in  1663  illustrates  the 
method,  and  the  expectations: 

1  Wee  will  grante  to  every  present  Undrt&ker  for  his  oune  head, 
100  acres  of  land,  to  him  and  his  heires  forever,  to  be  held 
in  free  and  common  Soccage,  &  for  every  man  Sarv*  yt  he 
shall  bringe  o'r  send  thithr  yt  is  fitt  to  bare  Armes,  armed  wth 
a  good  fierlocke  Musket,  performed  boare,  12  bullets  to  y® 
pound,  and  wth  20  Ib.  of  powder  &  20  Ib.  of  Bullets,  50  acres 
of  land.—  Hart,  I,  297. 

The  charters  show  the  crude  geographical 
Ideas  and  the  dangers  inherent  in  promiscuous 
grants.  In  the  instruction  given  by  Charles  II., 
in  1660,  to  the  first  Council  for  Foreign  Planta- 
tions we  find  the  following  unconscious  esti- 
mate of  this  chaos: 

You  shall  informe  yourselves  by  the  best  wayes  and  meanes 
you  can  of  the  state  and  condicon  of  all  Forraigne  Planta- 
cions,  and  by  what  comissions  or  authorities  they  are  and 
have  bcne  governed  and  disposed  of;  and  are  to  procure 
.  .  .  copies  of  all  such  comissions  and  graunts  .  .  . 
that  you  may  be  the  better  able  to  understand  judge  and  ad- 
minister.— Documents,  New  York. 

In  1621  the  Virginia  Company,  of  London, 
tells  us  how  they  sent  over  fifty  young  women 
to  be  given  in  marriage  for  "one  hundred 
and  fiftie  pounds  of  the  best  leafe  tobacco 
for  each  of  them ;"  for,  they  add,  "we  have  used 
extraordinary  care  and  diligence  in  the  choice 
of  them,  and  have  received  none  of  whom  we 
have  not  had  good  testimony  of  theire  honest 
life  and  cariadge." 

In  1660  Charles  II.,  in  his  instructions  for  the 
first  Council  for  Foreign  Plantations,  has  the 
following: 


8  AMERICAN    HISTORY    STUDIES. 

You  are  to  apply  your  selves  to  all  prudential  meanes  for 
the  rendering  those  dominions  usefull  to  England  and  Eng- 
land helpfull  to  them,  and  for  the  bringing  the  severall  Col- 
onies and  Plantacons,  within  themselves,  into  a  more  certaine 
civill  and  uniforms  of  goveremt  and  for  the  better  ordering 
and  distributing  of  publique  justice  among  them. — Docu- 
ments, New  York. 

6.  Political  life. 

James,  by  the  Grace  of  God,  King  of  England,  Scotland, 
France  and  Ireland,  Defender  of  the  Faith,  &c.,  whereas  Sir 
Thomas  Gates  .  .  .  (and  others)  consisting  of  certain 
Knights,  Gentlemen,  Merchants,  and  other  adventurerss,  have 
been  humble  suitors  unto  us,  that  We  would  vouchsafe  unto 
them  our  License,  to  make  Habitation  ...  in  that  part 
of  America  commonly  called  VIRGINIA,  .  .  .  situate 
.  .  .  between  four  and  thirty  Degrees  of  Northerly  Lati- 
tude .  .  .  and  five  and  forty  Degrees  of  the  same  Lati- 
tude, .  .  .  We,  greatly  commending,  .  .  .  their 
Desires  .  .  .  which  may  .  .  .  hereafter  tend  to 
the  Glory  of  his  Divine  Majesty,  .  .  .  and  in  time  bring 
the  Infidels  and  Savages  .  .  .  to  human  civility,  and  to 
a  settled  and  quiet  government :  Do,  &c. ,  agree.  .  .  . — 
Poore,  II,  1888.  Charter,  1606. 

We  ...  do  ...  Give,  Grant  and  Confirm  to  our 
trusty  and  well-beloved  subjects,  Robert,  Earl  of  Salisbury, 
.  .  .  Robert,  Lord  Viscount  Lisle,  ...  Sir  Humph- 
rey Weld,  Lord  Mayor  of  London,  .  .  .  George  Piercy, 
Esq.,  Sir  Edward  Cecil,  Knight,  ...  Dr.  Meadows, 
.  .  .  Captain  Pagnam  .  .  .  Geo.  Bolls,  Esq.,  Sher- 
iff of  London,  Wm.  Crashaw,  Clerk,  Batchelor  of  Divinity, 
.  .  .  Thomas  Harris,  Gentleman,  .  .  .  Geo.  Walker, 
Sadler,  John  Swinhow,  stationer,  Wm.  Brown,  shoemaker, 
.  Frances  Binley,  minister,  Richard  Shepherd, 
preacher,  William  Shirley,  haberdasher,  Wm.  Gibbs,  mer- 
chant, Thomas  Gypes,  cloth-maker,  John  Dike,  fishmonger, 
.  .  .  Christopher  Vertue,  vintner,  .  .  .  the  Company 
of  Goldsmiths,  the  Company  of  Brewers  .  .  .  Robert 
Chening,  yeoman,  .  .  .  that  they  shall  be  one  Body  or 
Commonalty  perpetual  "having  that  part  of  America  called 
A  irginia  ..."  [description  follows,  but  it  is  too  long 
to  quote].— Charter,  1609.  Poore,  Charters. 

1610.  Virginia. — Sir  Thomas  Gates  draws 
the  character  of  the  first  settlers.  There  was 


V  FOUNDING    OF   THE    COLONIES  9 

*  great  shipwrack  in  the  continent  of  Va.  by  the  tempest  of 
dissention :  every  man  overvaluing  his  own  worth,  would  be  a 
Commander;  every  man  underprising  an  others  value,  denied 
to  be  commanded.  .  .  .  The  next  fountaine  of  woes  was 
secure  negligence,  and  improvidence,  when  every  man  sharked 
for  his  present  bootie,  but  was  altogether  carlesse  of  succeeding 
penurie.  .  .  .  Unto  idlenesse  you  may  joyne  treasons, 
wrought  by  those  unhallowed  creatures  that  forsooke  the  Col- 
ony. .  .  .  Unto  Treasons,  you  may  joyne  covetousnesse 
in  the  Mariners,  who  .  .  .  partly  imbezzled  the  provis- 
ions, partly  prevented  our  trade  with  the  Indians,  making  the 
matches  in  the  night,  and  forestalling  our  market  in  the  day. 
Cast  up  this  reckoning  together :  want  of  government,  store 
of  idlenesse,  their  expectations  frustrated  by  the  traitors,  their 
market  spoyled  by  the  Mariners,  our  nets  broken,  the  deere 
chased,  our  boats  lost,  our  hogs  killed,  our  trade  with  the  In- 
dians forbidden,  some  of  our  men  fled,  some  murthered,  and 
most  .  .  .  weakened,  and  indanngered,  famyne  and 
sicknesse  by  all  these  meanes  increased. — Hart,  I,  206-208. 

1619.  Virginia. — We  have  an  official  "Re- 
porte  of  the  . . .  General  Assembly  convened  at 
James  City,  in  Virginia,  July  30,  1619,  consist- 
ing of  the  Governor,  the  Counsell  of  Estates, 
and  two  Burgesses  elected  out  of  cache  Incor- 
poration and  Plantation,  and  being  dissolved 
the  4th  of  August." 

The  most  convenient  place  we  could  finde  to  sitt  in  was  the 
Quir  of  the  Churche  Where  Sir  George  Yeardley,  the  Gov- 
ernor, being  sitt  down  in  his  accustomed  place,  those  of  the 
Counsel  of  Estate  sate  nexte  him  on  both  handes, -except 
onely  the  Secretary  then  appointed  Speaker,  who  sate  right 
before  him,  John  Twine,  Clerke  of  the  General  assembly, 
being  placed  next  the  Speaker,  and  Thomas  Pierse,  the  Ser- 
geant, standing  at  the  barre,  to  be  ready. for  any  Service  the 
Assembly  should  command  him.  But  forasmuche  as  men's 
affaires  doe  little  prosper  where  God's  service  is  neglected  .  . 
a  prayer  was  said.  .  .  .  Prayer  being  ended,  to  the  in- 
tente  that  as  we  had  begun  at  God  Almighty,  so  we  might  pro- 
ceed with  awful  and  due  respecte  towards  the  Lieutenant, 
our  most  gratious  and  dread  Soveraigne.  .  .  .  [The 
Assembly  proceeded  immediately  to  pass  laws  "Against  Idle- 
ness, Gaming,  durunkenes  &  excesse  in  apparell"  within 
three  days.] — Colonial  Records  of  Virginia. 


10  AMERICAN    HISTORY    STUDIES, 

1620.  Massachusetts. — Rev.  John  Robinson 
wrote  his  advice  after  the  Pilgrim  colonists, 
whom  he  could  not  accompany. 

Whereas  you  are  to  become  a  Body  Politick  .  .  .  and 
are  not  furnished  with  Persons  of  special  Eminency  .  .  . 
to  be  chosen  by  you  into  Office  of  Government ;  Let  your 
Wisdome  and  Godliness  appear  not  onely  in  choosing  such 
Persons  as  do  intirely  love  .  .  .  the  common  Good;  but 
also  in  yielding  unto  them  all  due  Honour  and  Obedience  in 
their  lawful  Administration,  not  beholding  in  them  the  Ordi- 
nariness of  their  Persons,  but  God's  Ordinance  for  your 
Good;  .  .  .  and  this  Duty  you  may  the  more  willingly, 
and  ought  the  more  conscionably  to  perform,  because  you 
are  ...  to  have  them  for  your  ordinary  Governours 
which  you  yourselves  shall  make  choice  of  for  that  Work. — 
Hazard,  Collections. 

1620. — Mayflower  Compact. 

This  day,  before  we  came  to  harbor,  observing  some  not  well 
affected  to  unity  and  concord  ...  it  was  thought  good 
there  should  be  an  association  and  agreement  ...  to 
submit  to  such  government  and  governors  as  we  should  by 
common  consent  agree  to  make  and  choose.  .  .  . 

In  ye  name  of  God,  Amen.  We  .  .  .  the  loyall  sub- 
jects of  our  dread  Soveraigne  Lord  King  James  .  .  .  have- 
ing  undertaken,  for  ye  glorie  of  Godj  and  advancemente  of 
ye  Christian  faith  and  honour  of  our  king  &  countrie,  a  voy- 
age to  plan  ye  first  colonie  in  ye  Northene  parts  of  Virginia. 
Doe  by  these  presents  .  .  .  in  ye  presence  of  God,  and 
one  of  another,  covenant  &  combine  our  selves  togeather  into  a 
civill  body  politick;  for  our  better  ordering,  and  preservation 
&  furtherance  of  ye  ends  aforesaid  ;  and  by  vertue  hearof  to 
enacte,  constitute  and  frame  such  just  &  equall  lawes  .  .  . 
as  shall  be  thought  most  meete  &  convenient  for  ye  generall 
good  of  ye  colonie:  unto  which  we  promise  all  due  submis- 
sion and  obedience.  'In  witness  whereof  we  have  hereunder 
subscribed  our  names  at  Cap-Codd  ye  11  of  November  .  .  . 
Ano  Dora.  1620.—  Winthrop,  History  of  Mass. 

1632. — Governor  Winthrop  tells  us  in  his 
Journal  that  (2-17-163f) 

The  governour  and  assistants  called  before  them  divers  of 
Watertown.  .  The  occasion  was,  for  that  a  warrant 

being  sent  to  Watertown  for  levying  of  £8  .  .  .  the  pas- 
tor and  elder,  etc.,  assembled  the  people  and  delivered  their 


POUNDING    OP   THE    COLONIES  11 

opinions,  that  it  was  not  safe  to  pay  moneys  after  that  sort, 
fur  fear  of  bringing  themselves  and  posterity  into  bondage.  .  . 
After  much  debate,  they  acknowledged  their  fault. 
The  ground  of  their  error  was,  for  that  they  took  this  govern- 
ment to  be  no  other  but  as  of  a  mayor  and  aldermen,  who 
have  not  power  to  make  laws  or  raise  taxations  without  the 
people;  but  understanding  that  this  government  was  rather 
in  the  nature  of  a  parliament,  and  that  no  assistant  could  be 
chosen  but  by  the  freemen  .  .  .  and  therefore  at  every 
general  court  .  .  .  they  had  free  liberty  ...  to  de- 
clare their  grievances  .  .  .  they  were  fully  satisfied;  and 
so  their  submission  was  accepted,  and  their  offence  par- 
doned." .  .  . 

1634. — The  general  court  came  to  a  deadlock. 

So  when  they  could  proceed  no  farther,  the  whole  court 
agreed  to  keep  a  day  of  humiliation  to  seek  the  Lord,  which 
accordingly  was  done,  in  all  the  congregations.  [And  then 
when  they  met  again]  although  all  were  not  satisfied  .  .  . 
yet  no  man  moved  aught  about  it ;  .  .  .  [and  thus  Puri- 
tan theology  ruled  and  softened  Puritan  politics]. — Win- 
throp's  Journal. 

1635. 

At  this  court,  one  of  the  deputies  was  questioned  for 
.  .  .  affirming  that  the  power  of  the  governor  was  but 
ministerial,  etc.  He  had  also  much  opposed  the  magistrates, 
and  slighted  them,  and  used  many  weak  arguments  against 
the  negative  voice,  as  himself  acknowledged  upon  record. 
He  was  adjudged  by  all  the  court  to  be  disabled  for  three 
years  from  bearing  any  public  office. —  Winthrop,  History. 

1637. — For  an  interesting  case  of  political  di- 
vision and  party  manipulation,  see  Hart,  I,  pp. 
378-9. 

1639. — Governor  Winthrop  gives  us  this  very 
interesting  view  of  theocratic  government: 

When  the  people  have  chosen  men  to  be  their  rulers,  and 
to  make  their  laws,  and  bound  themselves  by  oath  to  submit 
thereto,  now  to  combine  together  ...  in  a  public  peti- 
tion to  have  any  order  repealed,  which  is  not  repugnant  to 
the  law  of  God,  savors  of  resisting  an  ordinance  of  God 
.  .  .  amounts  to  a  plain  reproof  of  those  whom  God  hath 
set  over  them,  and  putting  dishonor  upon  them,  against  the 
tenor  of  the  fifth  commandment. — Winthrop,  History. 


12  AMERICAN    HISTORY    STUDIES. 

1646. — The  Presbyterians  demanded  a  share 
in  the  government. 

We  therefore  desire  that  civill  liberty  and  freedom  be  forth- 
with granted  to  all  truely  English,  equall  to  the  rest  of  their 
countrymen  .  .  .  and  as  all  freeborne  enjoy  in  our  native 
country.  .  .  .  Further,  that  none  of  the  English  nation, 
who  at  this  time  are  too  forward  to  be  gone,  and  very  back- 
ward to  come  hither,  be  banished,  unless  they  break  the 
known  lawes  of  England  in  so  high  a  measure  as  to  deserve 
so  high  a  punishment  .  .  .  and  we  likewise  desire,  that 
no  greater  punishments  be  inflicted  upon  offenders  than-  are 
allowed  and  met  by  the  laws  of  our  native  country. — Hutch- 
inson. 

1653. — In  this  year  Massachusetts  furnished 
the  first  American  example  of  the  nullification 
of  a  federal  act — i.  e.,  of  the  New  England  Con- 
federation. 

It  can  be  noe  lesse  then  a  contradiction  to  affeirme  the  Su- 
preame  power ;  which  wee  take  to  bee  the  Generall  Courts 
of  every  Jurisdiction  Can  bee  commanded  by  others  an  ab- 
surditie  in  pollicye ;  That  an  Intire  gov'r'ment  and  Jurisdiction 
should  prostitute  itselfe  to  the  comaund  of  Strangers  ;  a  Scan- 
dall  in  Religion  that  a  generall  court  of  Christians  should  bee 
oblidged  to  acte  and  engage  upon  the  faith  of  six  Delligates 
against  theire  consience  all  which  must  be  admitted. — Ply- 
mouth Records. 

1639.  Connecticut— "Fundamental  Orders" 
made  by  "a  Gen'all  Cort  at  Harteford." 

This  constitution  consists  of  eleven  articles, 
but  the  lack  of  space  necessitates  very  brief 
quotations. 

.  .  .  we  ...  the  Inhabitants  and  Residents  of 
Windsor,  Harteford  and  Wethersfield  .  .  .  doe  .  .  . 
conjoyne  our  selves  to  be  as  one  Publike  State  or  Common- 
wealth .  .  to  mayntayne  .  .  .  the  liberty  and 
purity  of  the  gospell  ...  as  also  in  our  Civill  Affaires 
to  be  guided  and  governed  according  to  such  Lawes,  Rules, 
Orders  and  decrees  as  shall  be  made  ...  as  followeth  : 
(1.)  It  is  ordered  .  .  .  that  there  shall  be  yerely  two 
generall  Assemblies;  ...  the  first  shall  be  called  the 
Courte  of  Elections  [to  choose  officers].  .  .  . 

(5.)  Also  the  other  General  Courte  in  September  shall  be 
for  make  ing  of  lawes.  .  .  . 


FOUNDING   OP  THE   COLONIES  13 

(10.)  It  is  Ordered  .  .  .  that  every  Generall  Courts 
.  .  .  shall  consist  of  the  Governor  .  .  .  and  4  other 
Magistrats  at  lest,  with  the  major  p'te  of  the  deputyes  of  the 
Beverall  Townes  legally  chosen.  .  .  — Poore,  Charters 
and  Constitutions ;  also  Hart,  I. 

New  York  had  a  reform  party  and  movement 
in  1650,  and  their  leaders  have  left  us  their 
ideas  of  reform  and  good  government.  Coloni- 
zation 

was  not  begun  properly ;  for  it  was  merely  accidental,  and 
was  not  intended.  .  .  .  Trade  ...  is  more  suited 
for  slaves  than  freemen,  in  consequence  of  the  restrictions 
upon  it  and  the  annoyances  which  accompany  the  exercise  of 
the  right  of  inspection  .  .  .  [For  years,  too,  not]  any 
thing  large  or  small, — worth  relating,  was  done,  built  or  made, 
which  concerned  or  belonged  to  the  commonalty,  the  church 
excepted. — New  York  Historical  Society,  Collections. 

Care  ought  to  be  taken  of  the  public  property' as  well  ec- 
clesiastical as  civil.  .  .  .  There  should  be  a  public 
school,  ...  so  that  first  of  all  in  so  wild  a  country, 
when  there  are  many  loose  people,  the  youth  be  well  taught 
and  brought  up,  not  only  in  reading  and  writing,  but  also  in 
the  knowledge  and  fear  of  the  Lord.  .  .  .  There  ought 
also  to  be  an  alms  house,  and  an  orphan  asylum,  and  other 
similar  institutions  .  .  .  the  country  must  also  be  pro- 
vided with  godly,  honorable  and  intelligent  rulers  who  are  not 
very  indigent,  or  indeed,  are  not  very  covetous.  .  .  . — 
Documents  relating  to  New  York  Colonial  History. 

That  none  shall  be  admitted  freemen  or  free  Burgesses 
within  our  Town  .  .  .  but  such  Planters  as  are  members 
of  some  or  other  of  the  Congregational  Churches  nor  shall 
any  but  such  be  chosen  to  Magistracy  or  to  Carry  on  any  part 
of  Civil  Judicature,  or  as  deputies  or  assistants,  to  have  power 
to  Vote  In  establishing  Laws,  and  making  or  Repealing  them 
or  to  any  Chief  Military  Trust  or  Office.  Nor  shall  any  But 
such  Church  Members  have  any  Vote  in  any  such  elections ; 
Tho'  all  others  admitted  to  be  Planters  have  Right  to  their 
proper  Inheritance,  and  do  and  shall  enjoy  all  other  Civil 
Liberties  and  Privileges.  .  .  . — Records  of  the  Town  of 
Newark,  N.  J. 

6.  Characteristics  of  colonial  life. 

Massachusetts. — John     Endicott     wrote    to 
Charles  II.  in  1661: 


14  AMERICAN    HISTORY    STUDIES. 

Vow  Servants  are  true  Men,  Fearers  of  God  and  of  the 
King,  not  given  to  change,  zealous  ofGovernment  and  order, 
orthodox  and  peacable  in  Israel ;  we  are  not  seditious  as  to 
the  Interest  of  Caesar,  nor  Schismaticks  as  to  the  matters  of 
Religion ;  We  distinguish  between  Churches  and  their  Ira- 
purities,  between  a  living  Man,  though  not  without  Sickness 
or  Infirmity,  or  no  man  ;  Irregularities  either  in  ourselves  or 
others  we  desire  to  be  amended.  [A  most  excellent  descrip- 
tion.]— Hazard,  Historical  Collections. 

Samuel  Newall,  in  1692,  enters  in  his  diary 
the  ominous  note  that 

A  Bill  is  sent  in  about  calling  a  Fast  and  Convocation  of 
Ministers  that  may  be  led  in  the  right  way  as  to  the  Witch- 
crafts. [And  the  next  page  we  read  about]  7  Balls  of  Fire 
that  mov'd  and  mingled  each  with  other.  .  .  . — Diary  of 
Sewell  in  Mass.  Hist.  Society  Collections. 

In  1631  Winthrop's  diary  gives  us  this  item: 

At  this  court  ...  a  servant  .  .  .  being  convict  .  .  . 
of  most  foul,  scandalous  invectives  against  our  churches  and 
government,  was  censured  to  be  whipped,  lose  his  ears,  and 
be  banished  the  plantation,  which  was  presently  executed. 

Connecticut. — In  the  true  Blue  Laws  of  1672 
we  read: 

If  any  Man  or  Woman  be  a  Witch  .  .  .  they  shall  be 
put  to  death. 

[And]  forasmuch  as  the  good  education  of  Children  is  of 
singular  behoof  anl  benefit  to  any  Colony,  and  whereas  many 
Parents  and  Masters  are  too  inlulgent  and  negligent,  .  .  . 
If  any  man  have  a  stubborn  or  rebellious  Son  .  .  .  sixteen 
years  of  age,  which  will  not  obey  ...  his  Father  or  ... 
Mother  .  .  .  then  may  his  Father  or  Mother,  being  his 
natural  Parents  lay  hold  on  him,  and  bring  him  to  the  Magis- 
trates assembled  in  Court,  and  notifie  .  .  .  that  their  Son 
is  Stubborn  and  Rebellious,  and  will  not  obey  their  voice  and 
chastisement,  but  lives  in  sundry  notorious  Crimes,  such  a  Son 
shall  be  put  to  death. 

No  man  shall  exercise  any  Cruelty  towards  any  Bruit  Creat- 
ures which  are  usually  kept  for  the  use  of  man.  .  .  .— 
Laws  of  Connecticut. 

John  Josselyn,  in  1674,  after  enumerating  a 
number  of  punitory  laws,  sums  up  New  Eng- 
landers: 


FOUNDING    OF    THE    COLONIES  15 

Their  great  masters,  as  also  some  of  their  Merchants  are 
damnable  rich  ;  generally  all  of  their  judgment,  inexplicably 
covetous  and  proud,  they  receive  your  gifts  but  as  an  homage 
or  tribute  due  to  their  transcendency,  which  is  a  fault  their 
Clergie  are  also  guilty  of,  whose  living  is  upon  the  bounty  of 
their  hearers.  .  .  .  The  chiefest  objects  of  discipline,  Relig- 
i.Mi,  and  morality  they  want,  some  are  of  a  Linaie-wooUie  dis- 
position, of  several  professions  in  Religion,  all  like  ^Ethiop- 
ians while  in  the  Tent,  only  full  of  ludification  and  injurious 
dealing,  and  cruelty  the  extreamest  of  all  vices. — Hart,  7,  495. 

Virginia.— In  1622  Capt.  Nathaniel  Butler 
tells  us  how  he 

found  the  plantations  generally  seated  upon  meer  salt  marshes, 
full  of  infectuous  boggs  and  muddy  creeks  and  lakes.  Their 
houses  are  generally  the  worst  that  ever  I  saw,  the  meanest 
cottages  in  England  being  every  way  equal  (if  not  superior) 
with  the  most  of  the  best. 

Tobacco  only  was  the  business,  and  for  ought  that  I  could 
hear  every  man  madded  upon  that  little  thought  or  looked 
for  anything  else. — Virginia  Historical  Society,  Collections. 

Governor  Berkeley,  in  his  official  report  of 
1071,  tells  us,  too,  that  of 

commodities  of  the  growth  of  our  country,  we  never  had  any 
b'.it  tobacco.  Now  for  shipping  we  have  admirable  masts 
and  very  good  oaks  ;  but  for  iron  ore  I  dare  not  say  there  is 
sufficient  to  keep  one  iron  mill  going  for  seven  years. — 
Ikrkeky's  Report,  Henning's  Statutes  of  Va. 

Rev.  John  Clayton,  writing  on  Tobacco  Cul- 
ture in  1686,  tells  us  that  in  Virginia 

'tis  only  the  barrenest  Parts  that  they  have  cultivated,  b'y  till 
ing  and  planting  only  the  High-Lands,  leaving  the  richer 
Vales  unstirr'd,  because  they  understand  not  anything  of 
Draining.  Therefore  every  three  or  four  years  they  must  be 
for  clearing  a  new  piece  of  ground  out  of  Woods,  which  re- 
quires much  Labour  and  Toil.  .  Thus  their  Plantations 
run  over  va.st  Tracts  of  Ground,  each  ambitious  or  engrossing 
as  much  as  they  can,  that  they  may  be  sure  to  have  enough  to 
plant  .  .  .  whereby  the  Country  is  thinly  inhabited  ;  the 
Living  solitary  and  unsociable  ;  Trading  confused  and  dis- 
persed ;  besides  other  Inconveniences.  [And  moreover]  reso- 
lute they  are  and  conceitedly  bent  to  follow  their  old  Practice 
and  Custom,  rather  than  to  receive  Directions  from  others, 
tho'  plain,  easi'e  and  advantageous.  .  .  . — Force's  Tracts. 


16  AMERICAN    HISTORY    STUDIES* 

Maryland.     1666. — Alsop's  description. 

He  that  desires  to  see  the  real  Platform  of  a  quiet  and 
sober  Government  extant,  Superiority  with  a  meek  and  yet 
commanding  power  sitting  at  the  Helme,  steering  the  actions 
of  a  State  quietly,  through  the  multitude  and  adversity  of 
Opinionous  waves  that  diversely  meet,  let  him  look  on  Mary- 
land .  .  the  Miracle  of  this  Age. — Hart,  7,  268. 

Maine. — John  Josselyn,  in  1675,  tells  us  of  the 
Maine  group:  , 

The  people  .  .  .  may  be  divided  into  Magistrates,  Hus- 
bandmen, or  Planters,  and  fishermen;  of  the  Magistrates  some 
be  Royalists,  the  rest  perverse  Spirits,  the  like  are  the  planters 
and  fishers.  .  .  . 

The  planters  have  a  custom  of  taking  tobacco,  sleeping  at 
noon,  sitting  long  at  meals  sometimes  four  times  a  day,  and 
now  and  then  drinking  a  dram  of  the  bottle  extraordinarily: 
the  smoking  of  Tobacco,  if  moderately  used  refresheth  the 
weary  much,  and  so  doth  sleep.  .  .  . 

If  a  man  .  .  .  came  where  they  are  roystering  and 
gulling  in  Wine  with  a  dear  felicity,  he  must  be  sociable  and 
Roly-poly  with  them,  taking  off  their  liberal  cups  as  freely, 
or  else  be  gone,  which  is  best  for  him.  .  .  . — Josselyn,  in 
Hart,  I,  430. 

7.  Religion. 

The  charters  from  1584  on  put  religion  as 
one  of  the  chief  motives  of  the  crown  in  further- 
ing colonization.  Nor  was  this  wholly  a  spir- 
itual spirit  with  some,  as  the  extract  from 
Peckham  given  above  shows  a  most  keen  ap- 
preciation of  the  commercial  value  of  Chris- 
tianity. But  at  any  rate  we  always  find  the 
crown  zealous  for  conversion — 
it  being  the  hon'r  of  our  Crowne,  [wrote  Chas.  II.  to  the 
Council  in  1660,]  and  of  the  Protestant  Religion,  that  all 
persons  in  any  of  our  Dominions  should  be  taught  the  knowl- 
edge of  God,  and  be  made  acquainted  with  the  misteries  of 
Salvation. 

William  Bradford,  in  1607,  tells  us  how  the 
English  Puritans, 

seeing  themselves  thus  molested  and  that  ther  was  no  hope 
of  their  continuance  ther  [in  England]  .  .  .  resolved  to 
goe  into  ye  Low-countries,  wher  they  heard  was  freedom  of 
Religion  for  all  men. 


POUNDING    OF   THE    COLONIES  17 

[And  from  their  wanderings  and  travels  it  came  that]  by 
ihese  so  publick  troubls,  in  so  many  eminente  places,  their 
cause  became  famous,  and  occasioned  many  to  look  into  ye 
same  ;  and  their  godly  cariage  and  Christian  behaviour  was 
such  as  left  a  Jeep  impression  in  the  minds  of  many.  And 
though  some  few  shrunk  at  these  first  conflicts,  and  sharp  be- 
ginnings [as  it  was  no  marvell]  yet  many  more  came  as  with 
fresh  courage,  and  greatly  animated  others. 

When  they  resolved  to  leave  Holland  for 
America,  to  the  thousand  fears  and  ill  prophe- 
cies, 

it  was  answered  that  all  great,  and  honorable  actions,  are 
accompanied  with  great  difficulties ;  and  must  be,  both  en- 
terprised,  and  overcome  with  answerable  courages.  It  was 
granted  ye  dangers  were  great,  but  not  desperate ;  the  diffi- 
culties were  many,  but  not  invincible.  For  though  their  were 
many  of  them  likly  yet  they  were  not  certaine.  .  .  .  Their 
condition  was  not  ordinarie;  their  ends  were  good  and  honor- 
able ;  their  calling  lawfull,  and  urgente ;  and  therfore  they 
might  expect  ye  blessing  of  God  in  their  proceeding.  .  .  . — 
Bradford '»  History  of  Mass. 

We  foresee  from  the  above  what  Kev.  Peter 
Bulkeley,  in  1651,  expressed  as  that  to  which 
New  England  was  called. 

There  is  no  people  but  will  strive  to  excell  in  some  thing ; 
what  can  we  excell  in,  if  not  in  holinesse  ?  If  we  look  to  num- 
ber, we  are  the  fewest ;  If  to  strength,  we  are  the  weakest ;  If 
to  wealth  and  riches,  we  are  the  poorest  of  all  the  people  of 
God  through  the  whole  world;  .  .  .  and  if  we  come 
short  in  grace  and  holinesse  too,  we  are  the  most  despicable 
people  under  heaven  e  .  .  strive  we  therefore  herein 

to  excell  and  suffer  not  this  crown  to  be  taken  away  from  us. 
.  .  —Hart,  I,  452. 

Massachusetts — The  Massachusetts  Company, 
in  1629,  wrote  to  their  colonists  regarding  their 
ministers  that 

because  their  Doctrine  will  hardly  bee  well  esteemed  whose 
persons  are  not  reverenced,  wee  desire  that  both  by  your 
owne  Example  and  by  commanding  all  others  to  do  the  like, 
our  Ministers  may  receive  due  Honor. — Am.  Antiquarian 
Society  Proceedings. 

Only  eight  years  later  Governor  Winthrop, 
when  examining  Anne  Hutchinson,  says  to  her: 


18  AMERICAN    HISTORY    STUDIES. 

Your  conscience  you  must  keep  or  it  must  be  kept  for  you 
—  [a  most  comprehensive  critique  on  Puritan  theology]— 
Hutchison,  History  of  Mass.  Bay  Colony. 

No  time  was  lost  in  passing  laws  by  whicii 
the  church  forced  reverence  from  all.  And 
things  went  on  this  way  until,  in  1660,  Edward 
Burrough,  an  English  Quaker,  gained  the  king's 
ear  for  the  miseries  of  the  Massachusetts 
Quakers.  One  horrible  example  is  enough: 

Two  beaten  with  pitched  ropes,  the  blows  amounting  to  an 
hundred  thirty -nine,  by  which  one  of  them  was  brought  near 
unto  death,  much  of  his  body  being  beat  like  unto  a,  jelly,  anil 
one  of  their  own  Doctors,  a  Member  of  their  Church,  who 
saw  him  said,  '  It  would  be  a  Miracle  if  ever  he  recovered,  he 
expecting  the  flesh  should  rot  off  the  bones' ;  who  afterwards 
was  banished  upon  pain  of  death. — Hart,  I,  484- 

In  1659  Mary  Dyer,  a  condemned  Quakeress, 
wrote  a  justification  to  the  General  Court: 

Was  ever  the  like  Laws  heard  of  among  a  People  that  pro- 
fess Christ  came  in  the  flesh?  And  have  such  no  other 
weapons  but  such  Laws,  to  fight  against  Spiritual  Wickedness 
withall,  as  you  call  it?— Hart,  I,  479. 

John  Cotton,  as  sketched  by  John  Norton  in 
1652,  illustrates  perfectly  the  solid  and  attract- 
ive parts  of  the  Puritan  minister: 

He  was  a  general  Scholar,  studious  to  know  all  things,  the 
want  whereof  might  in  one  of  his  profession  be  denominated 
ignorance.  .  .  .  He  was  a  man  of. much  Communion 
with  God,  and  acquaintance  with  his  own  heart,  observing 
the  daily  passages  of  his  life.  He  had  a  deep  sight  into  the 
Mystery  of  God's  grace,  and  man's  corruption,  and  large  ap- 
prehensions of  these  things.  ...  He  began  the  Sabbath 
at  evening  [on  Saturday]  ;  therefore  then  performed  Family- 
duty  after  supper,  being  larger  than  ordinary  in  Exposition, 
after  which  he  Catechised  his  children  and  servants,  and  then 
returned  into  his  Study.  .  .  Upon  his  return  from 
Meeting  he  returned  again  into  his  Study  .  .  .  unto  his 
private  devotion  :  where  (having  a  small  repast  carried  him 
up  for  his  dinner)  he  continued  till  the  tolling  of  the  bell. 
The  publick. service  being  over,  he  withdrew  for  a  space  to 
his  prementioned  Oratory  for  his  sacred  addresses  unto  God 
as  in  the  forenoon  ;  then  came  down,  repeated  the  sermon  iu 


FOUNDING    OF   THE    COLONIES  19 

the  family,  prayed,  after  supper  sang  a  Psalm,  and  towards 
leil-tiu,e  beiaking  himself  again  to  his  Study,  he  closed  lue 
day  with  prayer.  ...  In  his  Study  he  neither  sat  down 
unto,  nor  arose  from  his  meditations  without  prayer:  whilst 
his  eyes  were  upon  his  book  his  expectation  was  from  God. 
He  had  learned  to  study  because  he  had  learned  to  pray.— 
Hart,  I,  SS7-S8. 

Two    entertaining   Dutch   travelers   in   New 

England  in  1680  give  us  a  very  amusing,  but 

rather  caustic,  account  of  religion  in  Boston. 

•  One  of  the  ministers  being  sick,  a  day  of  fasting 

and  prayer  was  observed. 

In  the  first  place  a  minister  made  a  prayer  in  the  pulpit,  of 
full  two  hours  in  length  ;  after  which  an  old  minister  deliv- 
ered a  sermon  an  hour  long,  and  after  that  a  prayer  was  made, 
and  some  verses  sung  out  of  the  psalms.  In  the  afternoon, 
three  or  four  hours  were  consumed  with  nothing  except 
prayers,  three  ministers  relieving  each  other  alternately  ;  when 
one  was  tired,  another  went  up  into  the  pulpit.  There  was 
no  more  devotion  than  in  other  churches,  and  even  less  than 
at  New  York  ;  no  respect,  no  reverence  ;  in  a  word,  nothing 
but  the  name  of  independents  ;  and  that  was  all. 

The  ministers  seemed  to  be 

persons  who  seemed  to  possess  zeal  but  no  just  knowledge  of 
Christianity.  The  auditors  were  very  worldly  and  inattentive. 
The  best  of  the  ministers  ...  is  a  very  old  man,  named 
John  Eliot.  .  .  . 

They  are  all  Independents  in  matters  of  religion,  if  it  can 
be  called  religion  ;  many  of  them  perhaps  more  for  the  pur- 
poses of  enjoying  the  benefit  of  its  privileges  than  for  any  re- 
gard to  truth  and  godliness.  .  .  .  All  their  religion  consists 
in  observing  Sunday,  by  not  working  or  going  into  the  taverns 
on  that  day  ;  but  the  houses  are  worse  than  the  taverns.  No 
stranger  or  traveler  can  therefore  be  entertained  on  a  Sunday, 
which  begins  at  sunset  on  Saturday,  and  continues  until  the 
same  time  on  Sunday.  At  these  two  hours  you  see  all  their 
countenances  change.  Saturday  evening  the  constable  goes 
around  into  all  the  taverns  of  the  city  .  .  .  stopping  all 
noise  and  debauchery,  which  frequently  causes  him  to  stop 
his  search,  before  his  search  causes  the  debauchery  to  stop. 
There  is  a  penalty  for  cursing  and  swearing,  such  as  they 
please  to  impose.  .  .  Nevertheless,  you  discover  lilt!*; 
difference  between  this  and  other  places.  Drinking  and 
fighting  over  there  not  less  than  elsewhere;  and  as  to  truth 


'20  AMERICAN    HISTORY    STUDIES. 

and  true  godliness,  you  must  not  expect  more  of  them  than 
of  others. — Long  Island  Hist.  Society,  Memoirs. 

Alas,  the  children  were  not  all  they  should 
be,  either.  Chief  Justice  Sewall  tells  us  how 
for 

his  playing  at  Prayer-time  and  eating  when  Return  Thanks 
he  whipped  his  boy  Joseph  "pretty  smartly."  [We  do  not 
wonder  that  even  Puritan  theology  failed  to  repress  hunger, 
but  it  is  a  shock  to  find  that  there  was  enough  juvenility  left 
to  assert  itself  at  such  a  critical  moment.] 

Rev.  Nathaniel  Wood,  in  1647,  sums  up  best 
the  Puritan  view  of  toleration  in  its  most  viru- 
lent form. 

To  tolerate  more  these  indifferents  is  not  to  deale  indiffer- 
ently to  God.  The  power  of  all  Religion  and  Ordinances,  lies 
in  their  purity  :  their  purity  is  their  simplicity  ;  then  are 
mixtures  pernicious.  That  state  is  wise,  that  will  improve 
all  paines  and  patience  rather  to  compose,  then  tolerate  dif- 
ferences in  Religion.  He  that  is  willing  to  tolerate  any  religion, 
or  discripant  way  of  Religion,  besides  his  own,  unless  it  be  in 
matters  meerly  indifferent,  either  doubts  of  his  own,  or  is 
not  sincere  in  it.  He  that  is  willing  to  tolerate  any  unsound 
Opinion,  that  his  own  may  also  be  tolerated,  though  never 
BO  sound,  will  for  a  need  hang  God's  Bible  at  the  Devills 
girdle.  Every  toleration  of  false  Religion,  or  Opinions  hath 
as  many  errors  and  sins  in  it,  as  all  the  false  Religions  and 
Opinions  it  tolerats  and  one  sound  one  more.  That  State 
that  will  give  Liberty  of  Conscience  in  matters  of  Religion, 
must  give  Liberty  of  Conscience  and  Conversation  in  their 
Morall  Laws,  or  else  the  Fiddle  will  be  out  of  tune.  .  .  . 
There  is  no  rule  given  by  God  for  any  State  to  give  an  affirm- 
ative Toleration  to  any  false  Religion,  or  Opinion  whatso- 
ever ;  they  must  connive  in  some  cases,  but  may  not  concede 
in  any.— Hart,  7,  394-95. 

Maryland. — It  is  a  relief  to  turn  from  this  to 
a  colony  where  toleration  was  more  worthily 
conceived  of.  In  1633  Lord  Baltimore  summed 
up  his  long  instructions  to  the  colonists  with 
the  injunction: 

In  fine  .  .  .  bee  very  carefull  to  do  justice  to  every 
man  w'th'out  partiality  [and  the  result  was,  as  Alsop  wrote 
in  1666,  that]  here  the  Roman  Catholick  and  the  Protestant 
Episcopal  .  .  .  concur  in  an  unanimous  parallel  of 
friendship,  and  inseparable  love  infugled  unto  on*  another. 


FOUNDING    OF.  THE    COLONIES  21 

.  .  .  The  several  Opinions  and  Sects  .  .  .  meet  not 
together  in  mutinous  contempts  .  .  .  but  with  a  rever- 
end quietness  obeys  the  legal  commands  of  Authority. 

i 
In  1649  the  Maryland  Assembly  ruled  that 

blaspheming,  cursing,  denial  of  or  "reproachful! 
speeches,  words  or  language  concerning"  the 
Trinity  should  be  punished  with  death  and  for, 
feiture  of  goods.  But  in  the  same  proclamation 
we  read  that 

noe  person  .  .  .  professing  to  beleive  in  Jesus  Christ, 
Bhall  from  henceforth  bee  any  waies  troubled,  Molested  or 
"discountenanced  for  or  in  respect  of  his  or  her  religion  nor 
in  the  free  exercise  thereof  .  .  .  nor  any  way  compelled 
to  the  beleife  or  exercise  of  any  other  Religion  against  his  or 
her  consent,  so  as  they  be  not  unfaithfull  to  the  Lord  Pro- 
prietary, or  molest  or  conspire  against  the  civill  governem't 
.  .  .  — Archives  of  Maryland,  by  Browne. 

1     Virginia. — 

In  Virginia  the  families  .  .  .  being  seated  .  .  . 
at  such  distances  from  each  other,  many  of  them  are  very 
remote  from  the  House  of  God,  though  placed  in  the  middest 
of  them.  Many  Parishes  as  yet  want  both  Churches  and 
Gleabes,  and  I  think  not  above  a  fifth  part  of  them  are  sup- 
plyed  with  Ministers,  where  there  are  Ministers  the  people 
meet  together  Weekly,  but  once  upon  the  Lord's  day,  and 
sometimes  not  at  all,  being  hindered  by  .  .  '  .  the  length 
or  tediousness  of  the  way,  through  extremities  of  heat  in 
Summer,  frost  and  Snow  in  Winter,  and  tempestuous  weather 
in  both.  .  .  .  — Hart,  I,  295. 

Khode  Island. — To  be  contrasted  with  Ward 
on  toleration  we  have  E.  Williams,  writing  in 
1670.  * 

Forced  worship  stinks  in  God's  nostrils.  In  these  flames 
about  religion  .  .  .  there  is  no  other  prudent,  Christian 
way  of  preserving  peace  in  the  world  but  by  permission  of 
differing  consciences.  .  .  .  — Mass.  Hist.  Society,  Col- 
lections. 

And  Governor  Peleg  Sandford,  in  his  official 

report,  in  1680,  writes: 

We  leave  every  Man  to  walke  as  God  shall  persuade  their 
hartes,  and  doe  actively  and  passively  yield  obedience  to  the 
Civill  Magistrate  and  doe  not  actively  disturb  the  Civill  peace 


22  AMERICAN    HISTORY    STUDIES. 

.  .  .  and  have  liberty  to  frequent  any  meetings  of  worship 
for  their  better  instruction  and  information.  ...  — 
Greene,  History  of  Rhode  Island. 

Connecticut. — Blue  laws  of  1672: 

If  any  person     .     .     .     Blaspheme  the  Name  of  God  the 

Father,  Son  or  Holy  Ghost    ...     or  shall  curse  in  like 

manner,  he  shall  be  put  to  death. 

New  York. — Governor  Thomas  Dougan,  of 
New  York,  in  1687,  writes: 

Here  bee  not  many  of  the  Church  of  England  ;  few  Roman 
Catholicks  ;  abundance  of  Quakers  preachers  men  and  Wo- 
men especially ;  Singing  Quakers,  Ranting  Quakers,  Sabba- 
tarians ;  Anti  Sabbatarians ;  some  Anabaptists  some  Inde- 
pendents ;  some  Jews  ;  in  short  of  all  sorts  of  opinions  there 
are  some,  and  the  most  part  of  none  at  all. — Documentary 
History  of  New  York. 

Before  this,  in  1679,  Dankers  and  Slnjter 
went  to  religious  service  in  New  York. 

As  it  is  not  strange  in  these  countries  to  have  men  as  min- 
isters who  drink,  we  could  imagine  nothing  else  than  that  he 
had  been  drinking  a  little  this  morning.  His  text  was,  Come 
unto  me  all  ye,  etc.,  but  he  was  so  rough  that  even  the  rough- 
est and  most  godless  of  our  sailors  were  astonished. 

QUESTIONS   ON   THE   TEXT. 

1.  Name  the  reasons  given  for  colonizing.  2.  What  class 
of  emigrants  came,  judging  from  the  text?  3.  What  change 
between  1637  and  1660  in  regard  to  allowing  emigration?  4 
What  do  the  accounts  in  regard  to  ocean  voyages  show  in  re- 
gard to  character  of  emigrants?  6.  What  did  the  early  voy- 
agers say  regarding  the  Indians?  6.  How  did  the  king  dis- 
pose of  part  of  the  land?  7.  How  were  settlers  enticed  to 

J°  tmwTV,  ^  H°W  did  the  8ettlere  in  ^g^a  get 
wl  ?'  1What  land  Was  g/anted  in  the  fir«t  charter,  1606? 
T  11  wf8  ™re  stockholders  in  the  second  charter, 
Vtl  ;,Y  wudld  the  hrat  House  of  Besses  of  Vir^ 

no  nlfof  W  ;  ^^  C0^8t  in  reSard  to  taxe*  between  the 
eople  of  Watertown  and  Massachusetts  Bay  ?     13.   What  can 

you  learn  from  the  Mayflower  compact?     14.  Meaning  of  the 

e,Tr  to  X*  '<  *  d?Uty  ^  1'iesti«™g  the  right  of ^e  gov- 
ernor to  the  "negative  voice."     15.  What  did  Winthrop  be 

6  dnCneng^r  r°  hls  P°wr.as  g^rnor?  16.  What  relig- 
Wh«n«^M?i0n8^I2pIained  of  their  treatment?  17. 
you  find  an • ^at/a^.thefir,stP°Pular  constitution?  18.  Can 
the  pifiS  "'^.cations  of  a  spirit  of  rebellion  ?  19.  Were 
Puritans  superstitious?  20.  Were  their  laws  harsh? 
ieir  punishments?  21.  Name  the  indusiiies  you  find  men- 


FOUNDING    OF   THE   COLONIES  23 

tioned.  22.  Were  they  good  farmers  ?  23.  Trace  the  jour- 
ney of  the  Pilgrims  from  England  to  Plymouth.  24.  Were 
the  Puritans  tolerant?  25.  What  kind  of  a  man  was  Rev. 
John  Cotton?  26.  What  does  the  testimony  prove  in  regard 
to  the  morals  of  the  colonists?  27.  What  peculiar  attribute 
do  you  find  in  Maryland  ?  28.  What  colony  would  you  have 
preferred  to  live  in  ?  why  ? 

SUGGESTIVE  QUESTIONS. 

a.  How  would  you  explain  the  intolerant  spirit  so  often 
manifested?  b.  Point  out  institutions  existing  now  that  had 
their  beginning  in  17th  century.  <•.  Did  the  theory  and  the 
practice  of  the  Puritan  coincide?  d.  Trace  the  development 
of  witchcraft.  Do  you  find  its  basis  in  lile  depicted  in  above 
extracts?  e.  Name  the  lessons  you  may  learn  from  this 
study? 


American  History  Studies 


No  1 


OCTOBER,  1897. 


THE  DEVELOPMENT  OF  UNION 
AMONG  THE  COLONIES. 


SELECTIONS  MADE  FROM  THE  SOURCES 


H.  W.  CALDWELL, 

UNIVERSITY  OF  NEBRASKA. 


J.  H.  MILLER,  Publisher, 
LINCOLN,  NEBRASKA. 


Yearly  Subscription,   40  cents.  Single  Copy,  5  cents. 


PUBLISHED  MONTHLY,  EXCEPT  JULY  AND  AUGUST. 

Entered  as  second-class  mutter  at  the  Post  Office,  Lincoln,  Nebraska, 
U.  S.  A. 


AMERICAN  HISTORY  STUDIES. 


DEVELOPMENT  OF  UNION  AMONG   THE 
COLONIES. 

I. 

:HE  several  colonies  were  planted  at  dif- 
ferent times,  by  different  interests,  and  in 
some  cases  by  different  races.  The  geog- 
raphy of  the  country  was  such  that  there  was 
very  little  communication  and  intercourse  be- 
tween the  various  colonies  for  many  years.  The 
soil  and  climate  also  tended  to  produce  diver- 
gent interests  and  civilizations.  The  intolerant 
religious  spirit  of  the  age  lent  itself  also  to  the 
same  tendency.  On  the  whole,  one  sometimes 
wonders  that  the  colonies  came  together  as 
easily  as  they  did  in  support  of  interests  that 
were  not  always  clearly  in  common. 

It  is  very  difficult  frequently  to  find  an  ex- 
tract that  is  sufficiently  condensed  and  pointed, 
which  may  be  cited,  to  bring  out  some  force  that 
tended  to  prevent  union  or  was,  on  the  other 
hand,  aiding  it.  .  Especially  have  I  found  it  dif- 
ficult to  get  quotable  extracts  on  the  effects  of 
geography.  In  general  it  is  by  inference  only 
that  one  gathers  his  conclusions.  In  the  ex- 
tracts given  it  has  in  general  seemed  best  to 
give  those  that  brought  out  the  salient  move- 
ments looking  toward  union,  rather  than  to  give 
those  that  emphasized  the  divergent  tendencies 
of  the  time.  I  wish  to  emphasize  the  fact  that 
the  study  of  sources  means  that  every  word  and 
phrase  is  to  receive  careful  consideration.  The 
value  of  the  training  consists  to  a  considerable 


DEVELOPMENT  OP  UNION  AMONG  COLONIES.  27 

extent  in  acquiring  the  ability  to  read  between 
the  lines,  to  draw  inferences,  to  find  the  spirit 
or  motive  which  prompted  to  word  or  act. 

It  is  hoped  that  the  extracts  quoted  this 
month  may  illustrate  not  only  the  fact  that  vari- 
ous attempts  to  unite  were  made,  but  also  drive 
home  the  character  of  the  union  possible,  and 
the  kind  of  union  which  the  colonies  sought  and 
which  the  mother  country  attempted  to  force 
on  them.  It  will  be  an  interesting  exercise  to 
trace  the  expansion  of  the  idea  of  union  and  to 
classify  the  factors  which  were  at  work;  also  to 
follow  the  changes  in  the  nature  of  the  union 
which  were  outlined  in  the  various  proposals 
from  1643  to  1776.  Less  weight  has  been  given 
to  the  congresses  of  1765  and  1774  than  might 
seem  necessary  from  their  prominence.  The 
reason  for  this  is  that  the  union  movement  then 
was  rather  unconscious,  an  accessory  to  the 
more  palpable  thoughts, — first  that  of  a  redress 
of  grievances,  and  later  that  of  independence. 
The  Causes  of  the  Revolution,  which  will  be  our 
subject  for  next  month,  will  give  us  the  oppor- 
tunity to  study  this  period  as  it  deserves. 

The  extracts  this  month  are  taken  largely 
from  the  colonial  records  as  reprinted  by  the 
various  states.  Massachusetts  began  this  work 
as  early  as  1792  and  has  developed  it  till  now 
her  various  historical  publications  are  num- 
bered almost  by  the  hundreds.  New  York 
has  also  reprinted,  or  printed  from  manuscript, 
thousands  of  pages  of  letters,  laws,  reports,  and 
other  documents.  The  same  is  true  of  Connec- 
ticut and  other  states.  It  is  from  these  docu- 
ments that  we  can  draw  and  yet  scarcely  make 
an  impression  in  the  limited  space  at  our  com- 
mand. 

I  wish  to  thank  the  many  who  write  words  of 
encouragement  concerning  the  work  which  we 
are  attempting  to  outline.  Certainly  the  idea 


28  AMERICAN    HISTORY    STUDIES. 

that  history  may  be  studied  in  part  from  the 
sources  in  our  graded  schools  is  spreading.  In 
some  cases  it  is  well  done,  as  I  know  by  receipt 
of  the  results  in  the  form  of  papers.  I  desire  to 
call  the  attention  of  teachers  elsewhere  to  the 
plan  of  the  West  Superior,  Wis.,  schools,  where 
the  papers  are  printed  in  a  neat  little  volume, 
100  copies  printed,  costing  less  than  $16.  'The 
local  paper  published  each  student  paper  as  it 
was  completed,  then  put  them  together  at  a 
mere  'nominal  cost.  I  doubt  not  that  every 
town  has  some  local  paper  that  would  do  like- 
wise. Principal  Griffin  has  evidently  found  an 
added  incentive  to  good  work,  and  even  to  real 
contributions  to  local  history  in  some  cases. 

But  I  wish  also  to  say  that  some  criticisms 
come  to  me.  One  teacher  suggests  that  the 
spelling  of  her  pupils  is  not  improved  by  work- 
ing over  the  old  manuscripts.  Shall  the. spell- 
ing be  modernized,  or  shall  we  have  the  old 
flavor  of  our  forefathers,  trusting  to  some  de- 
vice to  avoid  the  evil,  if  such  it  be,  of  which 
mention  has  been  made?  Will  not  the  teachers 
discuss  this  question  pro  and  con  in  letters  to 
me?  Perhaps  a  more  serious  danger  is  sug- 
gested by  another  who  says:  How  do  we  know 
that  Mr.  Caldwell  can  or  does  make  extracts  in 
such  a  way  as  to  give  a  true  picture  of  the 
times?  How  do  we  know  that  the  writers  he 
cites  are  representative,  are  good  witnesses? 
Well,  the  mere  fact  that  such  questions  can  be 
asked  shows  that  in  part,  at  least,  our  work  is 
done.  The  critical  faculty  is  awake,  and  the 
word  of  any  one  text  will  perhaps  not  neces- 
sarily be  unhesitatingly  followed  hereafter.  I 
can  only  answer  that  I  try  to  be  fair.  My  judg- 
ment is  not  infallible,  and  my  knowledge  is  not 
encyclopaedic,  so  I  can  only  ask  such  confidence 
as  an  honest  desire  deserves.  By  all  means 
correct  me  by  every  available  source,  and  the 
end  that  we  seek  will  be  gained. 


DEVELOPMENT    OF    UNION    AMONG    COLONIES.    29 
II. 

As  early  as  1637  references  may  be  found  in 
the  colonial  records  pointing  to  a  desire  for 
union  among  the  colonies.  The  following  ex- 
tracts will  afford  some  insight  into  the  motives 
and  spirit  that  animated  them  in  their  actions 
at  this  time: 

It  is  ordered  that  the  letter  lately  sent  to  the  Governor  by 
Mr.  Eaton,  Mr.  Hopkins,  Mr.  Haynes,  Mr.  Coddington,  & 
Mr.  Brereton,  .  .  .  ,  shalbee  thus  answered  by  the  Gov- 
ernor :  that  the  Court  doth  assent  to  all  the  ppositions  (propo- 
sitions) layde  do  woe  in  the  aforesaid  letter,  but  that  the  an- 
swere  shalbee  directed  to  Mr.  Eaton,  Mr.  Hopkins,  &  Mr. 
Haynes,  onely  excluding  Mr.  Coddington  &  Mr.  Bre-nton,  as 
men  not  to  bee  capitulated  wtball  by  us,  either  for  them- 
selves or  the  people  of  the  iland  (Rhode  Island)  where  they 
inhabite,  as  their  case  standeth.®  [Oct.  7, 1640.] — Massachu- 
setts Colonial  Records,  I,  p.  305. 

1.  At  this  court  (7  Mo.  22  day  1642)  the  propositions  sent 
from  Connecticut  [to  Massachusetts]  about  a  combination, 
&c  were  read,  and  referred  to  a  committee  to  consider  of 
after  the  court,  who  meeting,  added  some  few  cautions  and 
new  articles,  and  for  the  taking  in  of  Plimouth  (who  were 
now  willing, )  and  Sir  Ferdinando  Gorges  province,  and  so 
returned  them  back  to  Connecticut,  to  be  considered  upon 
against  the  spring,  for  winter  was  now  approaching,  and 
there  could  be  no  meeting  before,  etc. — Winthrop,  History 
of  New  England,  II,  pp.  102-10S. 

2.  At  this  court  (Mp.  3,  10,  1643)  came  the  commissioners 
from   Plimouth,   Connecticut  and   New   Haven,  viz :   from 
Plimouth  Mr.  Edward  Winslow  and  Mr.  Collins,  from  Con- 
necticut Mr.  'Haynes  and   Mr.   Hopkins,  with  whom   Mr. 
Fenwick  of  Saybrook  joyned,  from  New  Haven  Mr.  Theophi- 
lus  Eaton  and  Mr.  Grigson.     Our  court  chose  a  committee 
to  treat  with  them  viz  :  the  governour  [John  Winthrop]  and 
Mr.  Dudley,  and  Mr.  Brodstreet,  being  of  the  magistrates ; 
and  of  the  deputies,  Captain  Gibbons,  Mr.  Tyng  the  treas- 
urer and  Mr.  Hathorn.     These  coming  to  consultation  en- 
countered some  difficulties,  but  being  all  desirous  of  union 
and  studious  of  peace,  they  readily  yielded  each  to   other 
in  such  things  as  tended  to  common  utility,  &c,  so  as  in 
some  two  or  three  meetings  they  lovingly  accorded  upon 
these  ensuing  articles,  which,  being  allowed  by,  our  court, 


30  AMERICAN    HISTORY    STUDIES. 

and  signed  by  all  the  commissioners,  were  sent  to  be  also  rati- 
fied by  the  general  courts  of  other  jurisdictions ;  .  .  . — 
Winthrop,  History  of  New  England,  vol.  II,  p.  IXlf. 
By  reason  of  ye  plottings  of  the  Narigansets,  . 
the  Indians  were  drawn  into  a  general  conspiracie  against 
ye  English  in  all  parts,  as  was  in  part  discovered  ye  yeare 
before  .  .  .  ;  [this  caused  t*«  Colonies]  to  thinke  of 
means  how  to  prevente  ye  same,  and  secure  them  selves. 
Which  made  them  enter  into  this  neu  union  &  confederation 
following.  [The  articles  follow.] — Bradford,  History  of 
Plymouth  Plantation,  p.  416. 

ARTICLES  OF  CONFEDERATION. 
WHEREAS  we  all  came  into  these  parts  of  America  with  the 
same  end  and  aim,  namely,  to  advance  the  kingdom  of  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  to  enjoy  the  liberties  of  the  gospel 
in  purity  with  peace ;  and  whereas  by  our  settling,  by  the 
wise  providence  of  God,  we  are  further  dispersed  upon  the 
seacoast  and  rivers  than  was  at  first  intended,  so  that  we 
cannot,  according  to  our  desire,  with  convenience  commu- 
nicate in  one  government  .  .  .  :  and  whereas  we  live 
encompassed  with  people  of  several  nations  and  strange 
languages,  which  hereafter  may  prove  injurious  to  us  or  our 
posterity ;  and  for  as  much  as  the  natives  have  formerly 
committed  sundry  insolences,  .  .  .  and  have  of  late 
combined  themselves  against  us,  and  seeing  by  reason  of  the 
sad  distractions  in  England  (which  they  have  heard  of,)  and 
by  which  they  know  we  are  hindered  ...  of  seeking 
advice,  and  reaping  .  .  .  protection,  which  at  other 
times  we  might  well  expect ;  we  therefore  do  conceive  it  our 
bounden  duty,  ...  to  enter  into  a  present  consocia- 
tion .  .  .  for  mutual  help  and  strength  .  .  .  ,  that, 
as  in  nation  and  religion,  so  in  other  respects,  we  be  and 
continue  one,  .  .  .  : 

I.  Wherefore  it  is  fully  agreed     .     .     -     between  parties 
above  named,     .    .    .    that  they    ...    be  called  by  the 
name  of  the  United  Colonies  of  New  England. 

II.  These  united  colonies    .     .     .     enter  into  a  firm  and 
perpetual  league  of  friendship  and  amity     .     .     .     both  for 
preserving  and  propagating  the  truth  and  liberties  of  the 
gospel,  and  for     ...     safety    .     .     . 

III.  It  is  further  agreed,  that  the   plantations  which  at 
present  are  or  hereafter  shall  be  settled  within  the  limits  of  the 
Massachusetts,  shall  be  forever  under  the  government  of  the 


DEVELOPMENT    OF    UNION    AMONG     COLONIES.   31 

Massachusetts,  and  shall  have  jurisdiction  among  themselves 
in  all  cases  as  an  entire  body ;  [same  provision  follows 
in  regard  to  Connecticut,  Plymouth,  and  New  Haven.] 
.  ,  provided  that  no  other  jurisdiction  shall  .  .  be 
taken  in  as  a  distinct  head  or  member  of  this  confederation, 
nor  shall  any  other  ...  be  received  by  any  of  them  ; 
nor  shall  any  two  .  .  .  join  in  one  jurisdiction,  without 
consent  of  the  rest,  .  .  . 

IV.  It  is  also    .     .    .     agreed,  that  the  charge  of  all 
just  wars,     .     .     .     shall,  both  in  men  and  provisions     .     . 
be  borne,          .     .     ,  in  manner  following,  viz.  [in  propor- 
tion to  number  of  males  from  16  to  60  years  of  age.] 

V.  It  is  further  agreed,  that  if  any  of  these  jurisdictions, 
.     .     .     be  invaded  by  any  enemy  whatsoever,  upon  notice 
and  request  of  any  three  [or  two  under  conditions]  magis- 
trates of  that  jurisdiction  so  invaded,  the  rest  of  the  confed- 
erates,    .     .     .     shall    .     .     .     send  aid    .     .     .     [as  fol- 
lows :]  Massachusetts  one  hundred  men  [furnished]    .    .    .   , 
and  each  of  the  rest  45  men  so  armed     .     .     . 

VI.  It  is  also  agreed,  that  for  the  managing    ...     of 
all  affairs    .     .     .    concerning  the  whole  confederation,  com- 
missioners shall  be  chosen  [as  follows  :]  two  for  the  Massachu- 
setts, two  for  Plimouth,  two  for  Connecticut,  and  two  for 
New  Haven,  all  in  church  fellowship  with  us,     ...     to 
hear    .     .     .     and  determine     ...     all   affairs  of  war 
or  peace,  leagues,  aids,  charges,     .     .          [This  section  also 
specifies  place  of  meeting,  etc.] 

VIII.  .  .  .  It  is  also  agreed,  that  if  any  servant  run 
away  from  his  master  into  any  of  these  confederate  jurisdic- 
tions, .  .  .  upon  certificate  of  one  magistrate  in  the 
jurisdiction  out  of  which  the  said  servant  fled,  .  .  .  the 
said  servant  shall  be  delivered  to  his  master  .  .  .  [In 
general  the  same  provision  in  regard  to  criminals.] 

XI.     [The  last  article  pertains  to  breaches  of  the  articles.] 

Lastly,  this  perpetual  confederation,  and  the  several  arti- 
cles and  agreements  .  .  .  were  .  .  .  certified  [as 
completed]  at  the  next  meeting  held  in  Boston,  (?•)  7,  1643. 
—  Winthrop,  History  of  New  England,  vol.  II,  p.  121f. 

The  English  Commissioners  to  New  England, 
in  1665,  pass  the  following,  among  other  resolu- 
tions: 

There  is  no  power  in  the  charter  [of  Massachusetts]  to 
incorporate  with  other  colonjes,  nor  to  exercise  any  power 


AMERICAN    HISTORY    STUDIES. 

by  that  association :  both  belongs  to  the  kings  prerogative. 
If  there  be  any  other  undecent  expressions  &  repetitions  of 
the  word  "commonwealth,  "  "state,  "  and  the  like,  in  other 
pages,  wee  desire  they  may  bee  changed. — Massachusetts 
Colonial  Records,  vol.  IV,  pt.  2,  p.  213. 

To  this  the  General  Court  of  Massachusetts 
sent  the  following  reply: 

.  .  .  And  also  considering  that  they  were  several!  col- 
onjes  under  one  king,  &  come  from  their  native  country  for 
one  &  the  same  end,  &  were  here  scattered  at  a  great  dis- 
tance amongst  the  wild  salvages  in  a  vast  wilderness,  had  no 
walled  tounes  or  garrisons  of  souldjers  for  their  defence, 
they  apprehended  the  least  they  could  doe  was  to  enter  into 
a  league  of  amity  and  union  one  with  another,  ingaging, 

.  .  .  jointly  to  assist  each  other  .  .  .  ,  this  being 
the  end  of  their  then  confederating,  ...  to  the  end 
that  as  our  distance  of  place  one  from  another  rendered  us 
weake,  &  layd  us  open  to  their  rage  and  violence,  so  our 
union  might  be  as  well  to  them  a  terror  as  to  us  strength  ; 
&  through  the  goodness  of  God,  wee  have  hitherto  had  large 
experience  of  the  great  good  that  by  this  confcederation 
hath  redounded,  not  only  to  all  his  majesties  subjects  here 
planted,  but  even  to  the  natives  themsalves,  it  having  been  a 
means  to  prevent  much  trouble  &  bloodshed  among  them- 
selves, so  that  although  since  that  warr  [the  Pequodj  souia 
of  them  have  .  .  put  us  to  a  considerable  charge  .  .  , 
yet  no  massacre  hath  beene  among  us  from  that  day  to  this, 
blessed  be  God  for  it.  — Massacluitdts  Colonial  Hewrds^ 
vol.  IV,  pt.  g,  p.  231. 

Again,  the  General  Court  says  that  the  com- 
missioners seem  to  desire 

to  make  a  flame  in  the  country  .  .  by  their  high  favors 
to  discontented  persons,  &  great  countenance  given  to  the 
Road  Islanders,  whose  first  rise  and  continuance  hath  beene 
such  to  the  other  colonjes  as  is  not  unknowns  to  any  discreet 
observer  in  these  parts;  and  on  the  other  hand,  calling 
.  .  .  the  United  Colonjes  that  usurped  authorise  con- 
trary to  the  light  of  reason,  .  .  .  which  therefore  made 
it  seeme  to  be  their  speciall  design  to  disunite  the  colonies 
&  so  to  bring  us  unto  ruine. — Ib.,  pp.  2S3-S4- 

To  the  Assembly  of  Maryland,  by  Jacob  Leisler. 

A.  D.  1689  :  29th  September  in  the  fort  of  New  York. 
GENTLEMEN — I  have  received  your  acceptable  letter  th« 


DEVELOPMENT    OP    UNION    AMONG    COLONIES.    33 

18  of  this  instant  &  communicated  as  directed,  wee  have 
considered  the  contents  with  due  affection,  &  ...  em- 
brace with  all  our  hearts  your  offers  of  a  mutuall  &  amiable 
correspondence  with  you,  which  we  shall  labor  to  keep  & 
preserve  inviolable  towards  you,  and  without  fail  shall  omitt 
nothing  that  may  appeare  any  wayes  to  your  intrest  peace  & 
welfare  as  we  also  doe  with  Boston  &  Connecticutt  collony 
being  of  the  same  opinion  with  you,  that  it  is  the  onely  means 
to  preserve  .  .  .  their  majestie's  interests.  [King  Will- 
iam  and  Queen  Mary].  .  .  [Similar  letters  sent  to 
Mass.,  Conn.,  etc.] — Documentary  History  of  New  York, 
vol.  II,  p.  19. 

'  Agents  of  four  colonies  and  several  Indiar* 
chiefs  met  in  1684  to  consider  union.  One  of 
the  sachems  addressed  the  Massachusetts  agent 
as  follows: 

We  all,  namely,  our  governor,  the  governor  of  Virginia 
and  the  Massachusetts  Colouey,  and  Maquese,  are  in  ona 
covenant.  We  do  plant  here  a  great  tree  of  peace,  whose 
branches  spread  so  far  as  the  Massachusetts  Coloney,  Vir- 
ginia, Maryland,  and  all  that  are  in  friendship  with  us  and  do 
live  in  peace,  unity,  and  tranquility,  under  the  shade  of  said 
tree. — Mass.  Archive^  XXX,  p.  SOS,  died  in  Frothingham. 

Governor  Treat,  of  Connecticut,  wrote  to  Gov- 
ernor Bradstreet,  July  31,  1089,  in  part,  as  fol- 
lows: 

I  hope  we  shall  be  willing  in  the  season  of  it,  to  revive  the 
ancient  confederation  upon  just  terms  and  articles,  holding 
forth  a  right  consideration  of  our  state  compared  with  the 
other  colonies. — Frotldngham,  Rise  of  the  U.  S.  Republic, 
p.  87,  note. 

Governor  Bradsteet  wrote,  February  3, 
1G89-90,  in  the  same  spirit: 

All  true  Englishmen  [ought]  to  lay  aside  their  private 
animosities  and  intestine  discords,  and  to  unite  against  the 
common  enemy. — Ib.,  88. 

Circular  to  the  Governors  of  the  several  prov- 
inces: 

NEW  YORK,  Aprill  2d,  1690: 

HOXBLE  Sm : — [After  stating  danger  from  French  and 
Indians,  Governor  Leister  says,  we]  have  likewise  couimuui- 


34  AMERICAN    HISTORY    STUDIES. 

cated  the  same  to  the  Governor  of  Boston,  &  the  :entlemen 
of  Connecticut!  are  likewise  advertised  thereof,  in  so  ranch 
that  wee  propose  for  a  generall  assistance  that  such  persons 
as  to  you  shall  seem  meet  may  be  commissioned  to  treat  with 
them  of  New  England,  Virginia,  pensilvania  and  Jerseys, 
that  we  may  conclude  what  may  conduce  most  to 
the  King's  intrest,  wellfare  of  the  provinces.  .  .  . — Doo 
umentary  History  of  New  York,  vol.  II,  p.  117. 

A.  D.  1690  ye  30  Apprill :  in  N.  Yorke. 
GENTLBMKNS — Last  monday  arrived  heer  the  Comintioners 
off  [of]  Boston  Plimouth  en  Caneticot  who  have  been  taking 
[talking]  off  several  businis  coricurning  the  Indian  war.      .  . 
[Signed  Jacob  Leisler.  ] — Ib.,  p.  1SS. 

N.  YORKE,  Primo  May  1690. 

At  a  meeting  of  ye  commissioners  of  ye  Province  of  New 
York  <fe  ye  collonies  of  ye  Massachusetts,  Plymouth  &  Con- 
necticut, 

It  is  concluded  .  .  .  that  each  of  ye  Collonies  afores* 
shall  Provide  and  furnish  ye  undermenconed  proporcons  of 
Souldiers  with  Answerable  Provisions  at  their  own  Charges 
to  Be  sent  with  all  Speed:— 

viz: 

By  New  Yorke  four  hundred * 400 

By  Massachusetts  Colony  one  hundred  &  sixty 160 

By  Connecticut  Colony  one  hundred  &  thirty  five 135 

By  Plymouth  Colony  sixty 60 

By  Maryland  by  Promise  one  hundred 100 

In  all  eight  hundred  fifety  five 855 

Further  agreed  [various  things  mentioned]  That  ye  Of- 
ficers Be  required  to  maintain  good  order  Amongst  ye  Sol- 
»  to  discountenance  &  Punish  Vice  &  as  much  as  may  be 
o  keep  ye  Sabbath  and  Maintain  ye  Worship  of  God. 

JACOB  LEISLER. 
WILLIAM  STOUGHTOM. 
SAML  SEWELL. 
P.  D.  LANCT. 
JOHN  WALLET. 
NATHAN  GOLD. 
WILLIAM  PETKI». 
—Massachusetts  Archives,  XXXVIt  47. 


DEVELOPMENT    OF    UNION    AMONG     COLONIES.   35 

Leisler  in  a  letter  to  the  governments  of  New 
Jersey,  Pennsylvania,  and  Rhode  Island,  at- 
tempting to  secure  additional  aid,  said: 

I  hope  you  will  not  be  wanting  so  blessed  a  work  at  this 
time  to  please  God  and  our  gracious  king.  Losing  the  op- 
portunity and  neglecting  the  season  may  cause  the  next  gen. 
eration  to  curse  us. — Frothingham,  p.  9S. 

Though  the  French  colony  contains,  perhaps,  not  30000 
men  capable  to  bear  arms  ;  yet  these  are  all  under  the  des- 
potic command  and  sole  direction  of  their  Governor-Gen- 
eral, .  .  .  The  strength  of  our  colonies,  on  the  other 
hand,  is  divided,  and  the  concurrence  of  all  necessary  both 
for  supplies  of  men  and  money.  Jealous  they  are  of  each 
other;  some  ill  constituted;  others  shaken  with  intestine 
divisions,  and  if  I  may  be  allowed  the  expression,  parsimon- 
ious even  to  prodigality.  Our  assemblies  are  diffident  of 
their  Governors ;  Governors  despise  their  assemblies,  and 
both  mutually  misrepresent  each  other  to  the  court  of  Great 
Britain.  Military  measures  demand  secrecy  and  dispatch  ; 
but  while  the  colonies  remain  divided,  and  nothing  can  be 
transacted  but  with  their  universal  assent,  it  is  impossible  to 
maintain  the  one  or  proceed  with  the  other.  Without  a  gen- 
eral constitution  for  warlike  operations,  we  can  neither  plan 
nor  execute.  We  have  a  common  interest,  and  must  have 
a  common  council ;  one  head  and  one  purse.  [An  extract 
from  a  letter  supposed  to  have  been  written  by  Gov.  Living- 
ston of  New  York,  and  his  friends  Messrs.  W.  Smith  and 
Scott,  1756.] — Massachusetts  Hist.  Society  Col.,  series  I, 
vol.  VII,  pp.  161-62. 

Mr.  Nelson's  memorial  about  the  state  of  the  north- 
ern colonies  in  America: 

24  Sept :  1696. 

Fifthly  I  am  now  to  make  another  remark  upon  the  prin- 
cipall,  and  greatest  defect  and  mistake,  in  which  we  have 
been,  and  are  yet  under,  I  meane  the  number  and  independ- 
ency of  so  many  small  Governments,  whereby  our  strength 
is  not  only  divided  and  weakened,  but  by  reason  of  their 
severall  interests,  are  become  and  doe  in  a  manner  esteeme 
each  as  foreigners  the  one  unto  the  other,  soe  that  whatever 
mischiefs  doth  happen  in  one  part,  the  rest  by  the  reason  of 
this  disunion  remaine  unconcerned  and  our  strength  thereby 
weakened ;  whereas  were  the  Colonies  of  New  England, 


36  AMERICAN    HISTORY    STUDIES. 

Hampshire,  Road  Island,  Conecticot,  New  York  joined  in 
one,  we  then  should  be  near  to  [ten?]  or  15  for  one  of  those 
of  the  French  in  Canada,  and  might  reasonably  propose 

to  make  an  entire  conquest  of  that  place.     .     . 
— New  York  Colonial  Records,  vol.  IV,  p.  £09. 

MR.  PENN'S  PLAN  OF  UNION.     [1698]. 

A  Briefe  and  Plaine  Scheam  how  the  English  Colonies  in 
the  North  parts  of  America,  viz:  Boston,  Connecticut,  Road 
Island  New  York  New  Jerseys,  Pensilvania,  Maryland,  Vir- 
ginia and  Carolina  may  be  made  more  usefull  to  the  Crowne, 
and  to  one  anothers  peace  and  safty  with  an  umversall  con- 
currence. 

1st.  That  the  Severall  colonies  before  mentioned  do  meet 
once  a  year,  and  oftener  if  need  be,  during  the  war,  and  at 
least  once  in  two  years  in  times  of  peace,  by  their  stated  and 
appointed  deputies,  to  debate  and  resolve  .  .  .  [on 
measures  for  public  good.] 

2.  That  in  order  to  it  two  persons  well  qualified  for  sence 
sobriety  and  substance  be  appointed  by  each  Province,  as 
their  Representatives    .     .          [in  Congress]. 

3.  That  the  Kings  Commissioner  for  that  purpose  specially 
appointed  shall  have  the  Chaire  and  preside  in  the  said  Con- 
gresse. 

4.  [Central  meeting  place.] 

6.  [Suggests  governor  of  New  York  as  King's  Commis- 
missioner.] 

6.  That  their  business  shall  be  to  hear  and  adjust  all  mat- 
*srs  of  Complaint  or  difference  between  Province  and  Prov- 
ince. As  1st  where  persons  quit  their  own  Province  and  goe 
to  another,  that  they  may  avoid  their  just  debts  .  .  ., 
2d  where  offenders  fly  justice,  .  .  .,  3dly  to  prevent 
or  cure  injuries  in  point  of  commerce,  4th,  to  consider  of 
ways  and  means  to  support  the  union  and  safety  of  these 
Provinces  against  the  publick  enemies  In  which  Congresse 
the  Quotas  of  men  and  charges  will  be  much  easier,  and 
more  equally  sett,  than  it  is  possible  for  any  establishment 
made  here  to  do ;  for  the  Provinces,  knowing  their  own  con- 
dition and  one  anothers,  can  debate  that  matter  with  more 
freedome,-  and  satisfaction  and  better  adjust  and  ballance 
their  affairs  in  all  respects  for  their  common  safty. 

71y  That  in  times  of  war  the  Kings  High  Commissionr 
ehall  be  generall  or  Chief  Commander  , — New  York 

Colonial  Documents,  vol.  IV,  p.  £96, 


DEVELOPMENT  OF  UNION  AMONG  COLONIES.  37 

From  the  scheme  of  Gov.  Livingston,  recom- 
mended to  the  Lords  of  Trade,  May  13,  1701: 

To  settle  the  American  Governments  to  the  greatest  pos- 
sible advantage,  it  will  be  necessary  to  reduce  the  number  of 
them  ;  in  some  places  to  unite  and  consolidate  ;  in  others  to 
separate  and  transfer ;  and  in  general  to  divide  by  natural 
boundaries  instead  of  imaginary  lines.  If  there  should  be 
but  one  form  of  government  established  for  the  North- 
American  provinces,  it  would  greatly  facilitate  the  reforma- 
tion of  them.  .  .  .A  nobility  appointed  by  the  king 
for  life  and  made  independent,  would  probably  give  strength 
and  stability  to  American  governments  as  effectually  as  her- 
editary nobility  does  to  that  of  Great  Britain. — Cited  iu 
Frothingham,  p.  117. 

Shirley  says  in  a  letter  dated  Oct.  21,  1754,  to 
Governor  Morris,  newly  appointed  governor  of 
Pennsylvania: 

The  best  advice  I  can  give  you  is  to  lose  no  time  for  pro- 
moting the  plan  of  a  union  of  the  colonies  for  their  mutual 
defence,  to  be  concerted  at  home,  and  established  by  act  of 
Parliament  as  soon  as  possible  .  I  am  laboring  this 

point  totis  viribis. — Ibid,  p.  146. 

Daniel  Coxe,  1722,  proposed  that  all  the  Brit- 
ish colonies  be 

united  under  a  legal,  regular,  and  firm  establishment,  over 
which  a  lieutenant  or  supreme  governor  should  be  consti- 
tuted and  appointed  to  preside  on  the  spot,  to  whom  the  gov- 
ernors of  each  colony  should  be  subordinate  ;  .  .  .  that 
two  deputies  should  be  annually  elected  by  the  council  and 
assembly  of  each  province,  who  are  to  be  in  the  nature  of  a 
great  council  or  general  convention  of  the  states  of  the  col- 
onies [to  fix  on  quotas  of  men  and  money  which]  should  be 
levied  and  raised  by  its  own  assembly  in  such  manner  as  they 
should  judge  most  easy  and  convenient. — Cited  by  Froth- 
ingham,p.  113. 

About  1725,  when  a  proposal  had  been  made 
by  the  Massachusetts  assembly  for  a  convention 
of  all  the  colonies,  it  was  pronounced  by  the 
Board  of  Trade  as  "a  mutinous  proposal." — 
Hutchinson's  History  of  Mass.,  vol.  Ill,  p.  119. 


38  AMERICAN    HISTORY    STUDIES. 

The  following  extracts  give  us  an  insight  into 
the  conditions  from  the  standpoint  of  the 
colonial  governors: 

Reasons  why  this  great  undertaking  of  building  of  New 
Forts  itc  extending  the  English  settlements  into  the  Indian 
country  is  not  effected  as  begun  by  this  Province  alone. 

6thly.  We  have  late  experience  how  ineffectual  Her  Maj- 
esty's circular  letters  in  the  late  war  did  prove,  appointing 
the  several  Governors  to  send  Commissioners  to  New  York 
to  agree  upon  certain  quotas  of  men,  and  for  a  supply  of 
money,  and  tho'  the  Governors  of  Virginia  and  Maryland 
did  prevail  with  their  people  to  assist  us  with  some  money, 
yet  could  not  prevail  with  them  to  send  any  men  ;  some  of 
the  commissioners  came  others  came  not ;  those  that  came 
refused  to  act  without  the  rest,  and  gave  reason  enough  to 
believe  they  were  fond  of  the  opportunity  of  that  colour,  by 
various  excuses,  doubts,  fears  and  jealousies ;  so  parted  do- 
ing nothing. — New  York  Colonial  Documents,  vol.  IV,  873. 

To  carry  on  this  design  of  extending  the  Christian  settle- 
ments and  English  forts  into  the  Indian  country  for  the  se- 
curity of  all  His  Majesty's  Plantations  on  this  North  Conti- 
nent of  America ; — 

I  humbly  begg  leave  to  propose  that  it  is  best  to  be  done 
in  time  of  peace  with  France.  1st  That  one  form  of  gov- 
ernment be  establish' d  in  all  the  neighbouring  colonies  on 
this  main  continent 

That  they  be  divided  into  three  distinct  governments — to- 
wit. 

That  Virginia  and  Maryland  be  annexed  to  South  and 
North  Carolina. 

That  some  part  of  Connecticut,  New  York,  East  and  West 
Jersey,  Pennsylvania  and  New  Castle  be  added  together. 

And  that  to  Massachusetts  be  added  New  Hampshire  and 
Rhoad  Island  and  the  rest  of  Connecticut.—  Ibid,  p.  874. 

The  degree  of  union  is  well  illustrated  by  the 
following  extract  from  a  letter  of  Gov.  Fletcher: 

Our  neighbours  on  the  Right  and  left  sitt  at  ease,  they 
govern  by  theire  own  Fancies,  Connecticutt  full  of  people 
keep  up  a  Comonwealth  Power,  oppress  the  better  sort  who 
dissent  from  them  but  will  not  send  a  man  or  sixpence  to 
our  relied 


DEVELOPMENT  OF  UNION  AMONG  COLONIES.  39 

And  from  that  Collony  I  could  march  up  men  dry  foot  to 
Bepell  our  Enemies,  from  hence  we  hav«  a  voyage  of  fifty 
leagues  to  Albany,  In  my  absence  the  Councill  here  writ  to 
all  the  neighbouring  Collonies  for  men  or  money,  the  Repub- 
lick  of  Connecticutt  quarrell  att  the  Superscription  of  the 
Councills  letter  for  want  of  theire  proper  Title. — Ibid. 

From  Pensilvania  they  say  they  have  nothing  to  send  us 
but  theire  good  wishes.  East  Jersey  has  sent  us  £248  and 
promiss  to  make  itt  £400  those  remoter  Collonies  I  have 

not  yet  heard  from Nothing  in  my  sight  but  an 

addition  of  Connecticutt  and  some  other  Colonys  can  sup- 
port us  by  paying  equall  duties  to  the  Crown,  the  Acts  of 
Navigation  are  wholy  violated  by  these  out  lyers.  .  .  . 
I  send  this  to  Boston  in  hopes  of  a  passage  from  thence  if 
Sr  William  Phips  do  not  intecept  it. — New  York  Colonial 
Documents,  vol.  IV,  p.  IS. 

The  governor  of  New  York  writes  as  follows 
of  the  conditions  in  America: 

Notwithstanding  their  Majst  Lett1*  Mandatorie  to  the  sev. 
eral  governments  to  assist  this  Province  little  or  no  assist- 
ance had  been  given  or  can  be  hoped  for  through  the  re- 
moteness of  some  Governments  and  Excuses  and  delays  of 
others. 

That  Pensilvania  being  most  Quakers  will  give  no  men  or 
money  for  warr  unless  they  were  joined  to  the  Government 
of  New  York,  by  which  that  Province  may  be  able  to  out- 
vote them. 

That  this  Province  lying  under  heavy  Taxes  and  Pres- 
sures, most  of  the  young  men  and  those  that  can  in  any  way 
remove,  depart  this  Province  to  the  neighbouring  Govern- 
ment where  they  are  wholly  free  from  Tax  or  any  other 
Contrybution  towards  the  Common  Security. — Ibid,  p.  5S. 

A   NEW  STAGE THE   ALBANY   CONGRESS — INSTRUC- 
TIONS TO   COMMISSIONERS. 

William  Shirley,  Esq.  Captain  General  and  Governor  in 
Chief  in  and  over  his  Majesty's  Province  of  Massachusetts 
Bay  in  New  England, 

To  Samuel  Welles,  John  Chandler,  Thomas  Hutchinson, 
Oliver  Partridge,  and  John  Worthington  Esq'rs  Greeting. 
Whereas,  in  pursuance  of  letters  from  the  right  honorable 
the  Lords  Commissioners  for  Trade  and  the  Plantations, 
.  .  .  a  General  Convention  of  Commissioners  for  their 


40  AMERICAN    HISTORY    STUDIES. 

respective  Governments  is  :ippivnu><l  to  lie  held  at  the  city 
of  Albany  in  the  month  of  June  next  [1754]  for  holding  an 
interview  with  the  Indians  of  the  Five  Nations  and  making 
them  presents  ou  the  part  of  said  Governments  usual  upon 
such  occasions,  in  order  to  confirm  and  establish  their  an- 
cient attachment  to  his  Majesty  and  their  constant  friendship 
to  his  Majesty's  subjects  on  this  continent ;  and  whereas 
the  Great  and  General  Court  or  assembly  of  the  Province 
of  Massachusetts  Bay  aforesaid,  have  elected  and  appointed 
you  to  represent  and  appear  for  said  Province  at  the  Con- 
vention aforesaid  for  the  purposes  abovernentioned  ;  as  also 
for  entering  into  articles  of  Union  and  Confederation  with 
the  aforesaid  Governments  for  the  general  defence  of  his 
Majesty's  subjects  and  interests  in  North  America,  as  well  in 
time  of  peace  as  of  war : — 

Now  I  do,  by  these  presents,  empower  and  commissionate 
you,  the  said  Samuel  Wells,  John  Chandler,  Thomas  Hutch- 
inson,  Oliver  Partridge,  and  John  Worthington,  as  Commis- 
sioners (or  any  three  of  you)  to  appear  for  and  represent  the 
Province  of  Massachusetts  Bay  aforesaid. 

Given  under  my  hand  and  the  public  seal  of  the  Province 
of  Massachusetts  Bay  aforesaid,  the  nineteenth  day  of  April, 
1754,  in  the  twenty  seventh  year  of  his  Majesty's  reign. 

W.  SHIRLEY. 

By  his  Excellency's  command: 
J.  WILLARD,  Secretary. 

A  true  copy. 

Attest:  SAMUEL  WELLER 
JOHN  CHANDLER. 
OL'R  PARTRIDGE. 
JOHN  WORTHINGTON. 

Similar  instructions  were  given  to  the  com- 
missioners from  the  other  provinces. — Massa- 
chusetts Historical  Collections,  vol.  V,  3d  series, 
p.  9. 

It  was  proposed  by  the  Governor,  that  to  avoid  all  dis- 
putes about  the  precedency  of  the  colonies,  they  should  be 
named  in  the  minutes  according  to  their  situation  from  north 
to  south  ;  which  was  agreed  to. — Ibid,  p.  26. 

A  motion  was  made  that  the  Commissioners  deliver  their 
opinion  whether  a  Union  of  all  the  Colonies  is  not  at  pres 
cut  absolutely  necessary  to  their  security  and  defence.  The 
question  was  according  put,  and  it  was  decided  in  the 


DEVELOPMENT  OF  UNION  AMONG  COLONIES.  41 

affirmative  unanimously.  .  .  .  Which  proposal  the  Board 
determined  to  proceed  upon  after  they  had  considered  some 
method  of  effecting  the  Union  between  the  Colonies. — Ibid- 
pp.  27-28. 

After  debates  held  on  the  plan  of  a  Union,  it  was  moved 
if  the  Board  should  proceed  to  form  the  plan  of  a  Union  of 
the  Colonies,  [it  ought]  to  be  established  by  an  Act  of  Par- 
liament.— Ibid,  p.  S9. 

That  the  said  Colonies  being  in  a  divided  disunited,  state, 
there  has  never  been  any  joint  exertion  of  their  force  or 
counsels  to  repel  or  defeat  the  measures  of  the  French,  and 
particular  Colonies  are  unable  and  unwilling  to  maintain  the 
cause  of  the  whole. — Ibid,  p.  67. 

It  is  proposed  that  humble  application  be  made  for  an 
Act  of  parliament  of  Great  Britain,  by  virtue  of  which  one 
general  government  may  be  formed  in  America,  including 
all  the  said  colonies,  within  and  under  which  government 
each  colony  may  retain  its  present  constitution,  except  in 
the  particulars  wherein  a  change  may  be  directed  by  the  said 
Act,  as  hereinafter  follows.  .  .  . 

That  the  said  general  government  be  administered  by  a 
President-General,  to  be  appointed  and  supported  by  the 
Crown;  and  a  Grand  Council,  to  be  chosen  by  the  repre- 
sentatives of  the  people  of  the  several  Colonies  met  in  their 
respective  Assemblies. 

That  the  House  of  Representatives  [of  each  colony]  may 
and  shall  choose  members  for  the  Grand  Council,  in  the  fol- 
lowing proportion,  that  is  to  say, 

Massachusetts 7      Maryland 4 

New  Hampshire 2       Virginia 7 

Connecticut ...  5       North  Carolina 4 

Rhode  Island 2       South  Carolina 4 

New  York 4 

New  Jersey 8  48 

Pennsylvania 6 

.  .  That  there  shall  be  a  new  election  of  members  of 
the  Grand  Council  every  three  years.  .  .  . 

That  after  the  first  three  years,  when  the  proportion  of 
money  arising  out  of  each  colony  to  the  general  treasury  can 
be  known,  the  number  of  members  to  be  chosen  for  each 
colony  shall  from  time  to  time  .  .  .  ,  be  regulated  by 
that  proportion,  yet  so  as  that  the  number  to  be  chosen  by 
any  one  province  be  not  more  than  seven,  nor  less  than  two. 

That  the  assent  of  the  President-General  be  requisite  to 


42  AMERICAN    HISTORY    STUDIES. 

all  acts  of  the  Grand  Council,  and  that  it  he  his  office  auJ 
duty  to  cause  them  to  be  carried  into  execution.  .  .  • 

That  they  raise  and  pay  soldiers  and  build  forts  for  the 
defence  of  any  of  the  colonies,  and  equip  vessels  of  force  to 
guard  the  coasts  and  protect  the  trade  on  the  ocean,  lakes 
or  great  rivers ;  but  they  shall  not  impress  men  in  any  col- 
ony, without  the  consent  of  the  Legislature. 

That  for  these  purposes  they  have  power  to  make  laws, 
and  lay  and  levy  such  general  duties,  imposts  or  taxes,  as  to 
them  shall  appear  most  equal  and  just  (considering  the  abil- 
ity and  other  circumstances  of  the  inhabitants  in  the  several 
colonies),  and  such  as  may  be  collected  with  the  least  incon- 
venience to  the  people ;  rather  discouraging  luxury,  than 
loading  industry  with  unnecessary  burdens. 

.  .  .  That  laws  made  by  them  for  the  purposes  aforesaid 
shall  not  be  repugnant,  but,  as  near  as  may  be,  agreeable  to 
the  laws  of  England,  and  shall  be  transmitted  to  the  King 
in  Council  for  approbation,  as  soon  as  may  be  after  their 
passing,  and  if  not  disapproved  within  three  years  after  pre- 
sentation, to  remain  in  force.  .  . 

And  all  civil  officers  are  to  be  nominated  by  the  Grand 
Council,  and  to  receive  the  President-General's  approbation 
bel'ure  they  officiate. — Jb.,  pp.  70-73. 

Franklin,  in  1789,  speaks  o/  the  results  of  the 
rejection  of  the  Albany  plan  of  union  of  1754 
ais  follows: 

On  reflection,  it  now  seems  probable  that,  if  the  foregoing 
plan,  or  something  like  it  had  been  adopted  and  carried  into 
execution,  the  subsequent  separation  of  the  colonies  from 
the  Mother-country  might  not  so  soon  have  happened,  nor 
the  mischiefs  suffered  on  both  sides  have  occurred,  perhaps, 
during  another  century.     For  the   colonies,   if  so   united, 
would  have  really  been,  as  they  then  thought  themselves, 
sufficient  to  their  own  defence,— and  being  trusted  with  it, 
as  by  <fhe  plan,  an  army  from  Britain   for  that  purpose, 
would  have  been  unnecessary.     The  pretenses  for  framing 
the  Stamp  Act  would  then  not  have  existed,  nor  the  other 
projects  for  drawing  a  revenue  from  America  to  Britain  by 
ts  of  parliament,  which  were  the  cause  of  the  breach,  and 
tended  with  such  terrible  expense  of  blood  and  treasure, 
>  that  the  different  parts  of  the  empire  might  still  have  re- 
mained in  peace  and  union.     But  the  fate  of  this  plan  was 
singular,     \fter  many  days'  thorough  discussion  of  all  its 


DEVELOPMENT    OF    UNION    AMONG    COLONIES.   43 

I  ar;?,  in  Congress,  it  was  unanimously  agreed  to,  and  copies 
ordered  to  be  sent  to  the  assembly  of  each  province  for  con- 
currence, and  one  to  the  ministry  in  England  for  approba- 
tion of  the  crown. 

The  crown  disapproved  it,  as  having  too  much  weight  in 
the  democratic  part  of  the  constitution,  and  every  assembly 
as  having  allowed  too  much  to  prerogative  ;  so  it  was  totally 
rejected. — Cited  in  Frothingham,  p.  140. 

Nothing  can  exceed  the  jealousy  and  emulation  which 
they  possess  in  regard  to  each  other.  The  inhabitants  of 
Pennsylvania  and  New  York  have  an  inexhaustible  source  of 
animosity  in  their  jealousy  for  the  trade  of  the  Jerseys. 
Massachusetts  Bay  and  Rhode  Island  are  not  less  interested 
in  that  of  Connecticut  .  .  were  they  left  to  themselves, 
there  would  soon  be  a  civil  war  from  one  end  of  the  conti- 
nent to  the  other. — Ib.,  p.  152. 

The  circular  to  the  various  colonies,  prepared 
by  the  legislature  of  Massachusetts,  calling  for 
a  congress  of  the  colonies,  dated  July  8,  1765, 
reads  as  follows: 

SIR, — The  House  of  Representatives  of  this  province,  in 
the  present  session  of  General  Court,  have  unanimously 
agreed  to  propose  a  meeting  ...  of  committees  from 
the  houses  of  representatives  or  burgesses  of  the  several 
British  colonies  on  this  continent,  [give  reasons]  and  to  con- 
sider of  a  general  and  united  .  .  .  representation  of 
their  condition.  .  .  — Niles,  Principles  and  Acts  of 
the  American  Revolution,  p.  156. 

[n  organizing  the  Congress  Oct  7,  17G5,  it  was  decided 
th  it  the  committee  of  each  colony  shall  have  one  voice  (vote) 
only  in  determining  any  question  that  shall  rise  in  the  con- 
gress.— Ib.,  162. 

Wednesday,  Oct.  9th,  1765,  A.  M. —  .  .  .  The  congress 
resumed  the  consideration  of  the  rights  and  privileges  of  the 
British  American  colonists,  &c.  .  .  — Ib.,  162. 

Thursday,  Oct.  24,  1765,  A.  M. —  .  .  .  The  Congress 
took  into  consideration  the  manner  in  which  their  several 
petitions  should  be  preferred  and  solicited  in  Great  Britain, 
and  thereupon  came  to  the  following  determination,  viz  : 

It  is  recommended  by  the  Congress  to  the  several  colonies 
to  appoint  special  agents  for  soliciting  relief  from  their  pres- 
ent grievances,  and  to  unite  their  utmost  interests  and  en- 
deavors for  that  purpose. — Ib.,  168. 


44  AMERICAN    HISTORY    STUDI-BS. 

One  stanza  of  a  "song  sung  at  Boston,  in  New 
England,"  1765,  entitled  "Advice  from  the 
Country,"  is  of  interest  in  this  connection: 

With  us  of  the  woods 

Lay  aside  your  fine  goods, 
Contentment  depends  not  on  fine  clothes 

We  hear,  smell  and  see, 

Taste  and  feel  with  high  glee, 
And  in  winter  have  huts  for  repose. 

In  1766  an  article  appears  signed  "A  British 
American." — Frothingham,  194. 

Sam.  Adams,  Sept.  16,  1771,  writes  in  the 
"Boston  Gazette": 

I  have  often  thought  that  in  this  time  of  common  distress, 
it  would  be  the  wisdom  of  the  colonists  more  frequently  to 
correspond  with  aid  to  be  more  attentive  to  the  particular 
circumstances  of  each  other.  .  .  .  The  colonists  form 
one  political  body  of  which  each  is  a  member.  .  .  The 
liberties  of  the  whole  are  invaded  ;  it  is  therefore  the  inter- 
est of  the  whole  to  support  each  individual  with  all  their 
weight  and  influence. — Frothingham,  p.  S6S. 

In  the  House  of  Burgesses  in  Virginia,  March,  1773. 

And  whereas  the  affairs  of  the  colony  are  frequently  con- 
nected with  those  of  Great  Britain,  as  well  as  the  neighboring 
colonies  .  .  .  therefore  .  .  .  Be  it  resolved,  that  a 
standing  committee  of  [11  including  Patrick  Henry  and 
Thomas  Jefferson]  be  appointed  .  .  .  whose  business  it 
shall  be  to  obtain  [information  concerning  acts  of  British 
government]  and  to  keep  up  and  maintain  a  correspondence 
.  .  with  her  sister  colonies.  .  .  .  Resolved,  that 
the  speaker  of  this  House  do  transmit  to  the  speakers  of  the 
different  assemblies  copies  of  the  said  resolutions  .  .  . 
and  request  them  to  appoint  some  person  or  persons  .  .  . 
to  communicate  from  time  to  time  with  the  said  committee. 
— Cited  in  Frothingham,  pp.  SSO-81. 

This  is  no  time  for  ceremony.  The  question  before  the 
Honse  is  one  of  awful  moment  to  this  country.  For  my 
own  part  I  consider  it  as  nothing  less  than  a  question  of 
freedom  or  slavery;  and  in  proportion  to  the  magnitude  of 
the  subject  ought  to  be  the  freedom  of  the  debate.  It  is 
only  in  this  way  that  we  can  hope  to  arrive  at  truth,  and 
fulfil  the  great  responsibility  which  we  hold  to  God  and  our 
country.  Should  I  keep  back  my  opinions  at  such  a  time, 


DEVELOPMENT    6F    UNION    AMONG     COLONIES.   45 

through  fear  of  giving  offense,  I  should  consider  myself 
as  guilty  of  treason  toward  my  country  .  .  . 

They  tell  us,  sir,  that  we  are  weak  ;  unable  to  cope  with 
so  formidable  an  adversary.  .  .  .  Sir,  we  are  not  weak, 
if  we  make  a  proper  use  of  the  means  which  the  God  of 
nature  hath  placed  in  our  power.  Three  millions  of  people, 
armed  in  the  holy  cause  of  liberty,  and  in  such  a  country  as 
we  possess,  are  invincible  by  any  force  which  one  enemy 
can  send  against  us. 

Patrick  Henry,  March  28,  1775,  in  Virginia  Convention. — 
Cited  in  American  Orations,  p.  18S. 

QUESTIONS. 

1.  Why  were  Mr.  Coddington  and  Mr.  Brereton  not  to  be 
communicated  with  by  the  governor  of  Massachusetts?  2. 
What  does  it  prove  in  regard  to  union?  3.  What  colony 
made  the  first  movement  toward  confederation?  )4.  Name 
the  provinces  in  New  England,  1640.  5.  Who  were  magis- 
trates?^. Who  were  deputies?  7.  Name  reasons  for 
union  in  1643.  8.  Who  was  Bradford?  9.  Who  was  Win  - 
throp?  10.  Did  the  colonies  have  the  right  to  form  the  con- 
federation? 11.  Do  you  find  any  evidences  of  jealousy 
among  the  colonies?  12.  What  were  the  terms  of  union  ? 
13.  Were  they  just?  14.  What  qualification  for  being  a 
"commissioner"?  15.  What  provisions  in  our  present  con- 
stitution can  you  find  in  the  confederacy  of  1643?  16.  Did 
the  English  government  approve  of  the  confederacy?  17. 
What  claims  did  the  colonists  make  in  regard  to  the  benefits 
of  the  confederation?  18.  Why  did  the  English  "commis- 
sions" dislike  the  use  of  the  words  state,  commonwealth, 
etc.,  by  the  colonists?  19.  Were  the  English  "commis- 
sions" and  the  colonists  on  good  terms?  Why?  20.  Was 
Jacob  Leisler  for  union  ?  21.  How  did  the  Indian  feel  about 
unity  ?  22.  What  did  Governor  Treat  mean  by  the  "  ancient 
confederation"?  23.  Under  what  name  do  you  find  Massa- 
chusetts sometimes  spoken  of?  24.  Was  Jacob  Leisler  an 
educated  man?  25.  Name  the  various  times  when  there 
was  a  union  more  or  less  perfect.  26.  Which  were  most 
numerous  in  America,  the  English  or  the  French  ?  27.  Why 
did  the  French  get  possession  of  so  large  a  part  of  America, 
about  1750  ?  28.  Name  the  reasons  given  by  Gov.  Living- 
ston. N  29.  What  remedy  was  proposed  for  the  weakness  of 
the  English  ?  80.  Can  you  see  that  union  was  wished  for 
different  purposes?  31.  Why  did  the  English  wish  to  unite 
the  colonies?  32.  Why  did  the  colonies  desire  to  form  a 
union?  33.  Name  the  means  the  party  of  the  "preroga- 
tive," the  English  party,  proposed  to  bring  about  unity. 
34.  Do  you  approve  of  Mr.  Penn's  plan  of  union? '^35. 
Which  the  better,  his,  or  that  of  Governor  Livingston,  1701  ? 
36.  Name  the  various  persons  who  proposed  plans  of  union. 
87.  Who  were  the  greatest  among  them  ?  38.  How  did  the 
Board  of  Trade  like  conventions  ?  39.  Why  did  Governor 


46  AMERICAN    HISTORY    STUDIES. 

Fletcher  not  expect  any  help  Irom  Pennsylvania?  40. 
Trace  the  steps  that  led  to  the  Albany  congress.  41.  Why 
were  the  colonies  named  in  order  from  north  to  south  ?  42. 
How  are  they  ordinarily  named  now?  43.  Who  authorized 
the  union?  44.  Name  the  points  in  the  plan  of  Franklin 
for  a  union,  1754.  45.  Why  were  these  articles  of  confed- 
ation  rejected  by  the  colonies?  by  England?  46.  Compare 
this  plan  with  that  of  1643.  47.  Which  the  better?  48. 
Importance  of  the  word  American  as  used  about  1766.  49. 
Why  did  the  colonies  desire  to  unite  about  1765  ?  50.  Write 
all  you  can  on  the  significance  of  the  phrase  "A  British- 
American."  61.  What  were  the  committees  of  correspond- 
ence? ''52.  In  what  states  was  the  idea  of  having  them  con- 
ceived? 53.  How  did  Patrick  Henry  regard  union?  54. 
What  kind  of  union  was  possible?  55.  Write  an  essay  trac- 
ing the  growth  of  the  idea  of  union.  56.  How  is  the  poetry 
connected  with  the  topic  of  union? 


American  History  Studies 


No.  3 


NOVEMBER,  1897. 


CAUSES  OF  THE 

AMERICAN   REVOLUTION. 


SELECTIONS  MADE  FROM  THE  SOURCES 


H.  W.  CALDWELL, 

UNIVERSITY  OF  NEBRASKA. 


J.  H.  MILLER,  Publisher, 
LINCOLN,  NEBRASKA. 


Nearly  Subscription,  40  cents.  Single  Copy,  5  cents. 


PUBLISHED  MONTHLY,  EXCEPT  JULY  AND  AUGUST. 

Entered  as  second-class  matter  at  the  Post  Office,  Lincoln,  Nebraska, 
U.  S.  A. 


AMERICAN  HISTORY  STUDIES. 


CAUSES  OF  AMERICAN  REVOLUTION". 

N  the  last  study  we  traced  some  of  the  move- 
ments  looking  to  a  union  of  the  colonies. 
An  attempt  was  made  to  show  that  two 
forces  were  at  work,  one  tending  to  emphasize 
the  importance  of  the  colony,  and  the  other  the 
value  and  necessity  of  union.  In  the  causes  of 
the  American  Revolution  we  shall  find  many 
factors  which  intensified  the  spirit  of  union.  In 
fact,  the  necessity  of  union  in  order  to  resist 
the  plans  of  the  English  king  and  ministry  was 
in  itself  a  great  educative  force  in  this  move- 
ment. The  right  of  local  self-government  was 
perhaps  the  most  fundamental  issue.  The  colo- 
nies were  accustomed  to  make  their  own  laws, 
and  to  live  their  own  life,  hence,  when  the  acts 
of  the  king  and  parliament  in  the  years  follow- 
ing 1760,  seemed  to  endanger  thes"e  privileges, 
resistance  appeared  and  increased  till  independ- 
ence was  established. 

It  must  be  seen  clearly,  if  we  are  to  under- 
stand this  movement  at  all,  that  a  spirit  existed 
in  America  different  from  that  in  England.  The 
colonists  already,  as  early  as  1760,  looked  at  all 
social,  political,  and  even  religious  questions 
out  of  different  eyes  than  their  fellow  citizens 
on  the  other  side  of  the  water.  This  spirit  was 
the  product  of  past  forces  in  their  colonial  life. 
In  short,  it  must  be  noticed  that  a  new  people 
was  in  process  of  formation.  Hence,  if  any 
question  arose  which  necessitated  the  yielding 
of  one  view  or  the  other  a  conflict  was  sure  to 


CAUSES   OP    AMERICAN    REVOLUTION.  49 

occur.  The  literature  of  the  period,  1760  to 
1776,  is  very  abundant,  both  in  American  and  in 
English  publications.  The  debates  in  parlia- 
ment furnish  the  views  of  English  statesmen. 
The  letters  that  were  sent  from  the  English 
cabinet  to  governors  and  other  officials  in 
America  give  us  the  spirit  that  animated  the 
English  government  of  the  time.  The  instruc- 
tions that  were  sent  by  the  colonial  assemblies 
to  their  agents  in  England,  the  resolutions  of 
the  Stamp  Act  Congress,  and  of  the  first  and 
second  Continental  Congresses,  together  with 
the  letters  and  writings  of  statesmen  of  the 
time,  preserve  a  very  vivid  picture  of  the  views 
of  the  Americans.  It  is  felt  that  in  the  follow- 
ing extracts  the  views  of  England  and  of  the 
"Tories"  are  not  adequately  set  forth;  the  rea- 
son, the  press  of  other  duties  which  made  the 
time  at  my  command  unequal  to  the  necessities 
of  the  occasion. 

For  those  who  can  invest  a  few  dollars  in  the 
very  best  body  of  sources  which  has  yet  ap- 
peared, I  wish  to  speak  of  Prof.  Hart's  "Ameri- 
can History  as  Told  by  Contemporaries."  The 
first  volume  is  out,  and  the  second,  which  brings 
the  history  down  to  1783,  is  announced  for  this 
month.  There  are  to  be  four  volumes,  pub- 
lished by  Macmillan  &  Co.,  at  $2.00  per  volume, 
or  $7.00  for  the  set. 

The  Acts  of  Navigation  and  of  Trade  of  1660, 
1664,  and  1672  should  be  noted  as  factors  in  the 
formation  of  an  American  spirit  hostile  to  Eng- 
lish conceptions. 

Act  of  Navigation,  1660. 

For  the  increase  of  shipping  and  encouragement  or 
the  navigation  of  this  nation  ...  be  it  enacted, 
that  ...  no  goods  or  commodities,  whatsoever, 
shall  be  imported  into,  or  exported  out  of,  any  lands, 
islands  ...  to  his  Majesty  belonging  ...  in 
Asia,  Africa  or  America,  in  any  other  ships  or  vessels 
.  .  .  but  in  such  ships  or  vessels,  as  do  truly  .  .  . 


50  AMERICAN    HISTORY    STUDIES. 

belong  to  the  people  of  England  ...  or  are  of  the 
build  of,  and  belonging  to,  any  of  the  said  islands  .  . 
Section  18.  And  it  is  further  enacted  .  .  .  that 
from  and  after  the  first  day  of  April,  which  shall  be  in 
the  year  of  our  Lord  1661,  no  sugars,  tobacco,  cotton, 
wool,  indigoes,  ginger,  fusticks  or  other  dyeing  wood  of 
the  growth  .  .  .  of  an  English  plantation  in  Amer- 
ica, Asia  or  Africa  shall  be  shipped,  carried  ...  to 
any  land  .  .  .  other  than  to  such  English  planta- 
tions as  do  belong  to  his  Majesty  ...  or  to  the 
kingdom  of  England.  .  .  .  — Rot.  Parl.  12  C.  II.,  p. 
2  nu.  6.  5  Statutes  of  the  Realm,  2.'t6.  Cited  in  Scott 
Development  of  Constitutional  Liberty,  pp.  314-16. 

Statute  15  Car.  II.,  c.  I—A..  D.  1663. 

Section  fifth.  And  in  regard  [to]  his  Majesty's  planta- 
tions beyond  the  seas  [which]  are  inhabited  and 
peopled  by  his  subjects  of  this  his  kingdom  of  England, 
for  .  .  .  keeping  them  in  a  firmer  dependence  upon 
it,  and  rendering  them  yet  more  beneficial  and  advan- 
tageous unto  it,  in  the  further  .  .  .  increase  of 
"""nglish  shipping  and  seamen,  vent  of  English  wool 
•nd  other  manufactures  .  .  . 

Section  sixth.  Be  it  enacted  etc.,  that  no  commodity 
of  the  growth,  production,  or  manufacture  of  Europe, 
shall  be  imported  into  any  land,  island  .  .  .  colony 
or  place  ...  to  his  Majesty  belonging  ...  in 
Asia,  Africa,  or  America,  .  .  .  but  which  shall  be 
bortfl  fide,  and  without  fraud,  laden  and  shipped  in  Eng- 
land, .  .  .  and  in  English-built  shipping,  etc.  .  . 
— Cited  in  Scott,  Appendix,  pp.  316-17. 

Stat.  25  Car.  II.,  c.  7— A.  D.  1672. 

Section  fifth.  And  whereas,  by  one  Act  passed  in  this 
present  Parliament,  ...  it  is  permitted  to  ship, 
carry,  convey,  and  transport  sugar,  tobacco,  cotton,  wool, 
indigo,  ginger,  fustick,  and  all  other  dyeing  wood  .  . 
from  the  place  of  their  growth  ...  to  any  other  of 
your  Majesty's  plantations  in  those  parts,  and  that 
without  paying  of  customs  for  the  same,  [act  here 
recites  that  this  privilege  has  been  abused  by  export- 
ing these  articles  to  other  countries,  therefore]  for  the 
prevention  thereof  ...  be  it  enacted  that  .  .  . 
if  any  ship  or  vessel  which  by  law  may  trade  in  any  of 
your  Majesty's  plantations  shall  .  .  .  take  on  braid 
any  of  the  aforesaid  commodities,  [a  bond  shall  Le 


CAUSES    OF    AMERICAN    REVOLUTION.  5) 

given]  to  bring  the  same  to  England    .    .    .    and  to 
no  other  place  [except,  of  course,  to  another  colony.] 

QUESTIONS. 

1.  In  what  ships  must  all  trade  with  England  be  car- 
ried on?  2.  Where  must  all  sugar,  etc.,  be  sent  to  be 
sold?  3.  Why  was  the  statute  of  1763  passed?  4.  If 
the  colonies  wished  to  buy  any  goods  of  Portugal, 
where  must  they  first  take  them?  5.  For  what  object 
did  colonies  exist?  6.  What  does  15  Car.  II.,  c.  7 
mean?  7.  What  effect  did  the  law  of  1672  have  on 
colonial  trade  in  sugars,  etc.? 

The  town  of  Boston,  as  early  as  May  24,  1764, 
in  instructions  given  to  its  delegates  in  the 
General  Assembly  of  Massachusetts,  gives  us 
some  indication  of  the  spirit  which  was  already 
abroad  in  regard  to  colonial  rights.  These  in- 
structions were  drafted  by  Samuel  Adams. 
The  whole  series  may  be  found  in  "American 
Patriotism." 

Our  trade  has  for  a  long  time  labored  under  great  dis- 
couragements, and  it  is  with  the  deepest  concern  that 
we  see  such  further  difficulties  coming  upon  us  as  will 
reduce  it  to  the  lowest  ebb,  if  not  totally  obstruct  and 
ruin  it.  ... 

There  is  now  no  room  for  further  delay;  we  there- 
fore expect  that  you  will  use  your  earliest  endeavors  in 
the  General  Assembly  that  such  methods  may  be  taken 
as  will  effectually  prevent  these  proceedings  against 
us.  ... 

[We  fear]  that  these  unexpected  proceedings  may  b« 
preparatory  to  new  taxations  upon  us;  for  if  our  trade 
may  be  taxed,  why  not  our  lands?  .  .  .  This  we 
apprehend  annihilates  our  charter  right  to  govern  and 
tax  ourselves.  It  strikes  at  our  British  privileges, 
which,  as  we  have  never  forfeited  them,  we  hold  in 
common  with  our  fellow  subjects  who  are  natives  of 
Britain.  If  taxes  are  laid  upon  us  in  any  shape  with- 
out our  having  a  legal  representation  where  they  are 
laid,  are  we  not  reduced  from  the  character  of  free  sub- 
jects to  the  miserable  state  of  tributary  slaves? — Amer- 
ican Patriotism,  p.  2  f. 

October  19,  17G5,  the  Convention  of  Dele- 
gates from  nine  of  the  colonies — the  Stamp  Act 


52  AMERICAN    HISTORY    STUDIES. 

Congress — formulates    the    principles    of    the 
American  people  in  these  words : 

The  members  of  this  Congress,  sincerely  devoted, 
with  the  warmest  sentiments  of  affection  and  duty,  to 
his  Majesty's  person  and  government,  inviolably  at- 
tached to  the  present  happy  establishment  of  the  Pro- 
testant succession;  .  .  .  having  considered  as  ma- 
turely as  time  will  permit,  the  circumstances  of  the 
said  colonies,  esteem  it  our  indispensable  duty  to  make 
the 'following  declarations  of  our  humble  opinion 
respecting  the  most  essential  rights  and  liberties  of 
the  colonists  and  of  the  grievances  under  which  they 
labor  by  reason  of  the  several  late  acts  of  Parliament: 

1.  That  his  Majesty's  subjects,  in  these  colonies,  owe 
the  same  allegiance  to  the  crown  of  Great  Britain,  that 
is  owing  from  his  subjects  born  within  the  realm;    and 
all  due  subordination  to  that  august  body,  the  Parlia- 
ment of  Great  Britain. 

2.  That  his  Majesty's  liege  subjects,  in  these  colonies, 
are  entitled  to  all  the  inherent  rights  and  liberties  of 
his  natural-born  subjects  within  the  kingdom  of  Great 
Britain. 

3.  That  It  Is  Inseparably  essential  to  the  freedom  o£ 
a  people,  and  the  undoubted  right  of  Englishmen,  that 
no  taxes  be  imposed  on  them  but  with  their  own  con- 
Bent,  given  personally,  or  by  their  representatives. 

4.  That  the  people  of  these  colonies  are  not,  and  from 
their  local  circumstances  cannot  be,  represented  in  the 
House  of  Commons  in  Great  Britain. 

5.  That  the  only   representatives   of  the   people  of 
these  colonies,  are  persons  chosen  therein  by  them- 
selves;   and  that  no  taxes  ever  have  been,  or  can  be 
constitutionally  imposed  on  them,  but  by  their  respec- 
tive legislatures. 

6.  That  all  supplies  to  the  crown  being  the  free  gifts 
of  the  people,  it  is  unreasonable  and  inconsistent  with 
the  principles  and  spirit  of  the  British  constitution,  for 
the  people  of  Great  Britain  to  grant  to  his  Majesty,  the 
property  of  the  colonists. 

8.  That  the  late  act  of  Parliament  entitled,  "An  act 
for  granting  and  applying  certain  stamp  duties,  and 
other  duties  in  the  British  colonies  and  plantations  in 
America,  etc.,"  by  imposing  taxes  on  the  inhabitants 
of  these  colonies,  and  the  said  act,  and  several  other 


CAUSES    OF    AMERICAN    REVOLUTION.  53 

acts,  by  extending  the  jurisdiction  of  the  courts  of 
admiralty  beyond  its  ancient  limits,  have  a  manifest 
tendency  to  subvert  the  rights  and  liberties  of  the 
colonists.  .  .  .  — Niles'  "Principles  and  Acts  of  the 
Revolution,"  under  New  York. 

The  Resolves  of  the  House  of  Burgesses  of 
Virginia,  passed  May  16, 1769,  may  also  be  cited 
to  show  the  constitutional  doctrines  set  forth 
some  four  years  afterwards  by  that  colony, 
which  later,  when  a  state,  became  known  as 
the  Mother  of  Presidents. 

Resolved,  Nemine  contradicente,  That  the  sole  right  of 
imposing  taxes  on  the  inhabitants  of  this,  his  Majesty's 
colony  and  Dominion  of  Virginia,  is  now,  and  hath 
been,  legally  and  constitutionally  vested  in  the  House 
of  Burgesses,  lawfully  convened,  according  to  the 
ancient  and  established  practice,  with  the  consent  of 
the  council,  and  of  his  Majesty,  the  King  of  Great 
Britain,  or  his  Governor  for  the  time  being. 

Resolved,  Nemine  contradicente.  That  it  is  the  un- 
doubted privilege  of  the  inhabitants  of  this  colony  to 
pe.ition  their  Sovereign  for  redress  of  grievances;  and 
that  it  is  lawful  ...  to  procure  the  concurrence  of 
His  Majesty's  other  colonies,  .  .  .  praying  the 
royal  interposition  in  favor  of  the  violated  rights  of 
America. 

Resolved.  Nemine  contradicente,  That  all  trials  for 
treason,  ...  or  for  any  felony  or  crime  whatso- 
ever, committed  ...  in  said  colony  .  .  .  ought 
of  right  to  be  had,  and  conducted  in  and  before  His 
Majesty's  courts,  held  within  his  said  colony,  .  .  .  ; 
and  that  the  seizing  .  .  .  and  sending  such  person 
.  .  .  beyond  the  sea  to  be  tried,  is  highly  derogatory 
of  the  rights  of  British  subjects,  .  .  .—Cited  in  Chan- 
niny,  The  United  States  of  Ameripa,  p.  SOO. 

Patrick  Henry  formulates  their  doctrines  in 
these  stirring  sentences,  May  29,  1765: 

WHEREAS,  The  Honorable  House  of  Commons,  in 
England,  have  of  late  drawn  into  question  how  far  the 
General  Assembly  of  this  colony  hath  power  to  enact 
laws  for  laying  of  taxes  .  .  .  ;  for  settling  and 
ascertaining  the  same  to  all  future  times,  the  House  of 


54  AMERICAN    HISTORY    STUDIES. 

Burgesses  of  this  present  General  Assembly  have  come 
to  the  following  resolves:  — 

Resolrcd,  That  the  first  .  .  .  settlers  of  ... 
Virginia,  brought  with  them  and  transmitted  to  their 
posterity,  ...  all  the  privileges  and  immunities 
that  have  at  any  time  been  held,  enjoyed,  and  possessed 
by  the  people  of  Great  Britain. 

Resolved,  That  his  Majesty's  liege  people  of  this  his 
ancient  colony  have  enjoyed  the  right  of  being  thus 
governed  by  their  own  Assembly  in  the  article  of  taxes 
and  internal  police;  [the  same  never  yielded  up;  also 
the  same  recognized  by  king  and  people  of  Great 
Britain.] 

Jfi-xultTil,  Therefore,  that  the  General  Assembly  of 
this  colony,  together  with  his  Majesty  or  his  substi- 
tutes, have  in  their  representative  capacity,  the  only 
exclusive  right  and  power  to  lay  taxes  and  imposts 
upon  the  people  of  this  colony;  and  that  every  attempt 
to  vest  such  power  in  any  other  person  or  persons 
whatsoever  than  the  General  Assembly  aforesaid,  is 
illegal,  unconstitutional,  and  unjust,  and  has  a  mani- 
fest tendency  to  destroy  British  as  well  as  American 
liberty. 

Resolved,  That    ...    the  inhabitants  of  this  colony, 
are  not  bound  to  yield  obedience  to  any  law 
designed    to    impose    any    taxation    whatsoever    upon 
them,   other    than    the    laws    ...    of    the    General 
Assembly.    .    .    . 

Resolved,  That  any  person  who  shall  .  .  .  assert 
.  .  .  that  any  person,  .  .  .  other  than  the  Gen- 
eral Assembly  .  .  .  have  any  right  or  power  to 
.  .  .  lay  any  taxation  on  the  people  here,  shall  be 
deemed  an  enemy  to  his  Majesty's  colony.— Cited  in 
Channiiiff,  pp.  51-52. 

Examination  of  Dr.  Franklin  before  the  Eng- 
lish House  of  Commons,  in  February,  1766,  rela- 
tive to  the  repeal  of  the  American  Stamp  Act: 

Q.  What  is  your  name,  and  place  of  abode? 

A.  Franklin,  of  Philadelphia. 

Q.  Do  the  Americans  pay  any  considerable  taxes 
among  themselves? 

A.  Certainly  many,  and  very  heavy  taxes. 

Q.  Are  not  the  colonies,  from  their  circumstances, 
very  able  to  pay  the  stamp  duty? 


CAUSES    OF    AMERICAN    REVOLUTION.  55 

A.  In  my  opinion  there  is  not  gold  or  silver  enough 
in  the  colonies  to  pay  the  stamp  duty  for  one  year. 

Q.  Do  not  you  think  the  people  of  America  would 
submit  to  pay  the  stamp  duty,  if  it  was  moderated? 
A.  No,  never,  unless  compelled  by  force  of  arms. 

Q.  What  was  the  temper  of  America  towards  Great 
Britain  before  the  year  1763? 

A.  The  best  in  the  world.  They  submitted  willingly 
to  the  government  of  the  crown,  and  paid,  in  their 
courts,  obedience  to  acts  of  parliament.  .  .  .  Na- 
tives of  Britain  were  always  treated  with  a  particular 
regard;  to  be  an  Old  England-man  was,  of  itself,  a 
character  of  some  respect,  and  gave  a  kind  of  rank 
among  us. 

Q.  And  what  is  their  temper  now? 

A.  O,  very  much  altered. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  hear  the  authority  of  parliament  to 
make  laws  for  America  questioned  till  lately? 

A.  The  authority  of  parliament  was  allowed  to  be 
valid  in  all  laws,  except  such  as  should  lay  internal 
taxes.  It  was  never  disputed  in  laying  duties  to  reg- 
ulate commerce. 

Q.  And  have  they  not  still  the  same  respect  for  par- 
liament? 

A.  No,  it  is  greatly  lessened. 

Q.  To  what  cause  is  that  owing? 

A.  To  a  concurrence  of  causes:  the  restraints  lately 
laid  on  their  trade,  .  .  .  the  prohibition  of  their 
making  paper-money  among  themselves,  and  then  de- 
manding a  new  and  heavy  tax  by  stamps,  taking  away, 
at  the  same  time  trials  by  juries,  and  refusing  to  receive 
and  hear  their  humble  petitions. 

Q.  Was  it  an  opinion  in  America  before  1763,  that  the 
parliament  had  no  right  to  lay  taxes  and  duties  there? 

A.  I  never  heard  any  objection  to  the  right  of  laying 
duties  to  regulate  commerce,  but  a  right  to  lay  internal 
taxes  was  never  supposed  to  be  in  parliament,  as  we 
are  not  represented  there. 

Q.  Suppose  an  act  of  internal  regulations  connected 
with  a  tax,  how  would  they  receive  it? 


56  AMERICAN    HISTORY    STUDIES.  » 

A.  I  think  it  would  be  objected  to. 

Q.  Then  no  regulation  with  a  tax  would  be  submitted 
to? 

A.  Their  opinion  is,  that  when  aids  to  the  crown  are 
wanted,  they  are  to  be  asked  of  the  various  assemblies, 
according  to  the  old  established  usage;  who  will,  as 
they  always  have  done,  grant  them  freely.  And  that 
their  money  ought  not  to  be  given  away,  without  their 
consent,  by  persons  at  a  distance,  unacquainted  with 
their  circumstances  and  abilities.  The  granting  aids 
to  the  crown  is  the  only  means  they  have  of  recom- 
mending themselves  to  their  sovereign;  and  they  think 
it  extremely  hard  and  unjust,  that  a  body  of  men,  in 
which  they  have  no  representatives,  should  make  a 
merit  to  itself  of  giving  and  granting  what  is  not  its 
own,  but  theirs;  and  deprive  them  of  a  right  they 
esteem  of  the  utmost  value  and  importance,  as  it  is  the 
security  of  all  their  other  rights. 

Q.  Are  they  (the  colonists)  acquainted  with  the 
declaration  of  rights?  And  do  they  know  that,  by  that 
statute,  money  is  not  to  be  raised  on  the  subject  but  by 
consent  of  parliament? 

A.  They  are  very  well  acquainted  with  it. 

Q.  How  then  can  they  think  they  have  a  right  to  levy 
money  for  the  crown?  .  .  . 

A.  They  understand  that  clause  to  relate  to  subjects 
only  within  the  realm;  that  no  money  can  be  levied  on 
them  (i.  e.  those  within  the  realm)  for  the  crown,  but 
by  consent  of  parliament.  The  colonies  are  not  sup- 
posed to  be  within  the  realm;  they  have  assemblies  of 
their  own,  which  are  their  parliaments,  and  they  are, 
in  that  respect,  in  the  same  situation  as  Ireland.  .  .  . 
They  think  the  parliament  of  Great  Britain  can  not 
properly  give  that  consent,  till  it  has  representatives 
from  America;  for  the  petition  of  right  expressly  says, 
it  is  to  be  by  common  consent  in  parliament;  and  the 
people  of  America  have  no  representatives  in  parlia- 
ment to  make  a  part  of  that  common  consent. 

A.  They  find  in  the  great  charters,  and  the  petition 
and  declaration  of  rights,  that  one  of  the  privileges  of 
English  subjects  is,  that  they  are  not  to  be  taxed  but 
by  their  common  consent;  they  have  therefore  relied 
upon  it,  ...  that  parliament  never  would,  nor 


CAUSES   OF   AMERICAN    REVOLUTION.  57 

could,  .  .  .  assume  a  right  of  taxing  them,  till  it 
had  qualified  itself  to  exercise  such  a  right,  by  admit- 
ting representatives  from  the  people  to  be  taxed,  who 
ought  to  make  a  part  of  the  common  consent. 

Q.  What  used  to  be  the  pride  of  the  Americans? 

A.  To  indulge  in  the  fashions  and  manufactures  of 
Great  Britain. 

Q.  What  is  now  their  pride? 

A.  To  wear  their  old  clothes  over  again,  till  they  can 
make  new  ones. — Franklin,  Works,  IV,  p.  709  f. 

Perhaps  there  is  no  document  that  gives  us 
a  deeper  and  keener  insight  into  the  thought  of 
the  times  than  Franklin's  "Causes  of  American 
Discontent,"  written  in  1768.  The  following 
quotations  will  indicate  the  scope  of  his  argu- 
ments. It  will  be  noticed  that  he  writes  as  an 
Englishman. 

From  the  time  that  the  colonies  were  first  considered 
as  capable  of  granting  aids  to  the  crown,  .  .  .  it  is 
said  that  the  constant  mode  .  .  .  was  by  requisi- 
tions made  from  the  crown,  ...  to  the  several 
asemblies,  .  .  . 

Had  this  happy  method  .  .  .  been  continued  .  . 
there  is  no  doubt  but  all  the  money  that  could  reason- 
ably be  expected  to  be  raised  from  them  in  any  manner 
might  have  been  obtained  without  the  least  .  .  . 
breach  of  the  harmony  of  affections  .  .  .  between 
the  two  countries. 

[They  believed  that]  whatever  money  was  to  be 
raised  from  the  people  in  the  colonies  must  first  be 
granted  by  their  assemblies,  as  the  money  to  be  raised 
in  Britain  is  first  to  be  granted  by  the  House  of  Com- 
mons; .  .  . 

[Another  act  was  passed]  to  oblige  the  several 
Assemblies  to  provide  quarters  for  the  soldiers,  fur- 
nishing them  with  fireing  (fuel),  bedding,  candles, 
small  beer  or  rum,  etc. 

[Later,  1767,  another  person,  Townshend]  projected 
the  levying  more  money  from  America,  by  new  duties 
on  various  articles  of  our  own  manufacture,  as  glass, 
paper,  .  .  .  etc.,  which  were  .  .  .  for  the  pay- 
ment of  salaries  of  governors,  judges  and  other  officers 


58  AMERICAN    HISTORY    STUDIES. 

of  the  crown  in  America,  it  being  a  pretty  general  opin- 
ion here  that  those  officers  ought  not  to  depend  on  the 
people  there  for  any  part  of  their  support. 

They  say  there  [in,  America]  as  to  governors  .  .  . 
that  they  are  generally  strangers  to  the  provinces  they 
are  sent  to  govern.  They  have  no  estate  ...  or 
natural  relation  there  to  give  them  an  affection  for  the 
country;  that  they  come  only  to  make  money  as  fast  as 
they  can;  are  sometimes  men  of  vicious  character  .  . 
As  to  judges,  they  allege  that,  being  appointed  from  this 
country,  and  holding  their  commissions  not  during 
good  behavior,  as  in  Britain,  but  during  pleasure,  all 
the  weight  of  interest  or  influence  would  be  thrown  into 
one  of  the  scales,  ...  if  the  salaries  are  also  to  be 
paid  out  of  duties  raised  upon  the  people  without  their 
consent,  .  .  . 

They  reflected  how  lightly  the  interests  of  all  Amer- 
ica had  been  estimated  here,  when  the  interests  of  a  few 
of  the  inhabitants  of  Great  Britain  happened  to  have 
the  smallest  competition  with  it.  ...  The  hatters 
of  England  have  prevailed  to  obtain  an  act  in  their  own 
favor,  restraining  that  manufacture  in  America.  .  .  . 

In  the  same  manner  have  a  few  nail-makers,  and  a 
still  smaller  body  of  steel-makers  .  .  .  prevailed 
totally  to  forbid  by  an  act  of  Parliament  the  erecting 
of  slitting  mills,  or  steel  furnaces,  in  America. — Frank- 
lin's Works;  also  in  "American  Patriotism." 

Stephen  Hopkins,  of  Providence,  Rhode  Isl-  > 
and,  sets  forth  the  grievances  of  the  colonies  in 
a  very  elaborate  paper.     From  it  a  few  extracts 
are   made,  which  bring  out  some   points  not 
found  in  the  other  documents  cited: 

.  .  .  Whether  the  colonies  will  ever  be  admitted 
to  have  representatives  in  Parliament — whether  it  be 
consistent  with  their  distant  and  dependent  state; 
whether,  if  it  were  admitted,  it  would  be  to  their 
advantage — are  questions  we  will  pass  by.  ... 

The  colonies  are  at  so  great  a  distance  from  Eng- 
land that  the  members  of  Parliament  can  generally 
have  but  little  knowledge  of  their  business  .  .  .  and 
interests.  .  . 

For  what  good  reason  can  possibly  be  given  for  mak- 
ing a  law  to  cramp  the  trade  and  interests  of  many  of 


CAUSES   OF    AMERICAN    REVOLUTION.  59 

the  colonies,  and  at  the  same  time  lessen  .  .  .  the 
consumption  of  the  British  manufactures  in  them?  .  . 
The  duty  of  three  pence  per  gallon  on  foreign  molasses 
.  .  .  must  operate  as  an  absolute  prohibition.  This 
will  put  a  total  stop  to  the  exportation  of  lumber, 
horses,  flour  and  fish  to  the  French  and  Dutch  sugar- 
colonies.  .  .  .  Putting  an  end  to  the  importation  of 
foreign  molasses  .  .  .  puts  an  end  to  all  the  costly 
distilleries  in  these  colonies  and  to  the  rum  trade  with 
the  coast  of  Africa,  and  throws  it  into  the  hands  of  the 
French.  .  .  . 

By  the  same  act  of  parliament  the  exportation  of  all 
kinds  of  timber  and  lumber,  the  most  natural  products 
of  these  colonies  is  greatly  encumbered.  .  .  . 

Enlarging  the  power  and  jurisdiction  of  the  courts  of 
vice-admiralty  in  the  colonies,  is  another  part  of  the 
same  act  greatly  and  justly  complained  of.  Courts  of 
admiralty  have  long  been  there  in  most  of  the  colonies 
whose  authority  were  circumscribed  within  moderate 
territorial  jurisdiction.  .  .  . 

But  now  this  case  is  quite  altered,  and  a  custom- 
house officer  may  make  a  seizure  in  Georgia  of  goods 
ever  so  legally  imported,  and  carry  the  trial  to  Halifax, 
.  .  .  and  thither  the  owner  must  follow  him  to  de- 
fend his  property;  .  .  . 

We  are  not  insensible  that  when  liberty  is  in  danger 
the  liberty  of  complaining  is  dangerous;  yet  a  man  on 
a  wreck  was  never  denied  the  liberty  of  roaring  as 
loud  as  he  could,  says  Dean  Swift.  And  we  believe  no 
good  reason  can  be  given  why  the  colonies  should 
not  modestly  and  soberly  inquire,  what  right  the  Par- 
liament of  Great  Britain  have  to  tax  them. — Cited  in 
American  Patriotism,  p.  4  /• 

THE  LETTERS  FROM  A  FARMER. 

Among  the  most  famous  writings  of  the  time, 
as  well  as  the  most  influential,  were  the  Letters 
of  a  Farmer.  These  letters  were  written  by  John 
Dickinson,  a  lawyer  of  Pennsylvania,  in  1768. 
The  sentiment  of  the  man,  and  the  arguments 
of  the  time  are  indicated  in  the  following  ex- 
tracts, taken  from  different  parts  of  the  twelve 
letters  which  he  wrote  and  published  in  the 
newspapers  of  the  day: 


60  AMERICAN    HISTORY    STUDIES. 

With  a  good  deal  of  surprise  I  have  observed,  that 
little  notice  has  been  taken  of  an  act  of  parliament,  as 
injurious  in  its  principle  to  the  liberties  of  these  col- 
onies, as  the  Stamp- Act  was;  I  mean  the  act  for  sus- 
pending the  legislature  of  New  York.  ...  If  the 
British  parliament  has  a  legal  authority  to  issue  an 
order,  that  we  shall  furnish  a  single  article  for  the 
troops  here,  and  to  compel  obedience  to  that  order,  they 
have  the  same  right  to  issue  an  order  for  us  to  supply 
those  troops  with  arms,  cloths,  and  to  compel  obedi- 
ence to  that  order  also;  in  short  to  lay  any  burdens 
they  please  upon  us.  What  is  this  but  taxing  us  at  a 
certain  sum,  and  leaving  to  us  only  the  manner  of 
raising  it?  How  is  this  made  more  tolerable  than  the 
Stamp-Act?  ...  « 

"It  is  my  opinion  [quoted  from  Wm.  Pitt]  that  this 
kingdom  has  no  right  to  lay  a  tax  upon  the  colonies." 
.  .  .  ''The  Americans  are  the  sons,  not  the  bastards 
of  England."  "Taxation  is  no  part  of  the  governing 
and  legislative  power."  .  .  .  The  taxes  are  a  vol- 
untary gift  and  grant  of  the  commons  alone.  In 
Legislation  the  three  estates  of  the  realm  are  alike  con- 
cerned, but  the  concurrence  of  the  peers  and  the  crown 
to  a  tax  Is  only  necessary  to  close  with  the  form  of  law. 
The  gift  and  grant  is  of  the  commons  alone."  .  .  . 
"The  distinction  between  legislation  and  taxation  is 
.  .  .  necessary  to  liberty."  The  commons  of  Amer- 
ica represented  in  the  assemblies  have  ever  been  in 
possession  of  the  exercise  of  this  their  constitutional , 
right,  of  giving  and  granting  their  own  money.  "They 
would  have  been  slaves  if  they  had  not  enjoyed  it." 

The  idea  of  a  virtual  representation  of  America  in 
this  house,  is  the  ^  most  contemptible  idea  that  ever 
entered  the  head  of  man, — it  does  not  deserve  a  serious 
refutation.  .  .  . 

For  Who  Are  a  Free  People?  Not  those,  over  whom 
government  is  reasonably  and  equitably  exercised,  but 
those  who  live  under  a  government  so  constitutionally 
checked  and  controlled,  that  proper  provision  is  made 
against  its  being  otherwise  exercised.  The  late  act  is 
founded  -on  the  destruction  of  this  constitutional 
security.  If  the  parliament  have  a  right  to  lay  a  duty 
of  Four  Shillings  and  Eight  pence  on  a  hundred  weight 
of  glass,  or  a  ream  of  paper,  they  have  a  right  to  lay 


CAUSES   OF   AMERICAN    REVOLUTION.  61 

.  duty  of  any  other  sum  on  either.    .    .    . ;     if  they 

have  a  right  to  lay  a  tax  of  one  penny  upon  us,  they 
have  a  right  to  levy  a  million,  for  where  does  their 
right  stop?    At  any  given  number  of  Pence  Shillings 
or  Pounds?    To  attempt  to  limit  their   right,    after 
granting  it  to  exist  at  all,  is  as  contrary  to  reason — as 
granting  it  at  all  is  contrary  to  justice.    .    .  _.    If  they 
have  any  right  to  tax  us — then  whether  our  own  money, 
shall  continue  in  our  own  pockets  or  not,  depends  no 
longer  on  us,  but  on  them,    .    .    .    There  is  nothing 
which  we  can  call  our  own.  or  to  use  the  words  of  Mr. 
Locke — "What  property  have  we  in  that,  which  an- 
other may,  by  right,  take  when  he  pleases,  to  himself?" 
These  duties,  which  will  inevitably  be  levied  upon  us — 
which  are  now  upon  us — are  expressly  laid  for  the  sole 
purpose  of  taking  money.    This  is  the  true  definition  of 
"taxes."    They  are  therefore  taxes.    This  money  is  to 
be  taken  from  us.    We  are  therefore  taxed.    Those  who 
are  taxed  without  their  own  consent  expressed  by  them- 
selves or  their  representatives  are  slaves. 

We  are  taxed  without  our  own  consent,  expressed  by 
ourselves   or   our   representatives.    We   are    therefore 
Slaves. 
•  •••••• 

The  three  most  important  articles  that  our  assem- 
blies, or  any  legislature  can  provide  for,  are  First — the 
defence  of  the  society;  Secondly — the  administration 
of  justice;  Thirdly — the  support  of  civil  government. 
Nothing  can  properly  regulate  the  expense  of  making 
provisions  for  these  occasions,  but  the  necessities  of 
society;  its  abilities;  the  conveniency  of  the  modes 
of  levying  money  in  the  manner  in  which  the  laws 
have  been  executed;  and  the  conduct  of  the  officers 
of  governments.  All  which  are  circumstances,  that 
cannot  possibly  be  properly  known,  but  by  society 
itself;  or  if  they  should  be  known,  will  not  probably 

be   properly   considered    but   by   that   society 

"We  have  all  the  rights  requisite  for  our  prosperity." 
The  legal  authority  of  Great  Britain  may  indeed  lay 
hard  restrictions  upon  us;  but  like  the  spear  of  Tele- 
phus,  it  will  cure  as  well  as  wound.  Her  unkindness 
will  instruct  and  compel  us,  to  discover,  in  our  industry 
or  frugality,  surprising  remedies — if  our  rights  continue 
unviolated;  for  as  long  as  the  products  of  our  labor. 


62  AMERICAN    HISTORY    STUDIES. 

and  the  rewards  of  our  care,  can  properly  be  called  our 
own,  so  long  it  will  be  worth  our  while  to  be  industrious 
and  frugal.  But  if  when  we  plow— sow— reap— gather— 
and  thresh — we  find  that  we — plow — sow — reap — gather 
— and  thresh  for  others,  whose  Pleasure  is  to  be  the 
Sole  Limitation  how  much  they  shall  take,  and  how 
much  they  shall  leave,  why  should  we  repeat  the  un- 
profitable toilf  "Horses  and  oxen  are  content  with  that 
portion  of  the  fruits  of  their  work,  which  their  owners 
assign  them,  in  order  to  keep  them  strong  enough  to 
raise  successive  crops;  but  even  these  beasts  will  not 
submit  to  draw  for  their  masters,  until  they  are  subdued 
by  whips  and  goads."  .  .  . 

"If  I  am  an  Enthusiast,  in  anything;  it  is  in  my  zeal 
for  the  perpetual  dependence  of  these  colonies  on  their 
mother  country — a  dependence  founded  on  mutual 
benefits,  the  continuance  of  which  can  be  secured  only 
by  mutual  affections." 

For  my  part  I  regard  Great  Britain  as  a  Bulwark, 
happily  fixed  between  these  colonies  and  the  powerful 
nations  of  Europe.  It  is  therefore  our  duty,  and  our 
interest,  to  support  the  strength  of  Great  Britain. — Life 
and  Writings  of  J.  Dickinson,  pp.  808-408. 

Lord  Mansfield  made  a  reply  to  Pitt  (Chat- 
ham) in  regard  to  the  right  of  the  English  Par- 
liament to  tax  the  colonies.  Something  of  an 
idea  of  his  arguments  may  be  seen  in  the  follow- 
ing extracts: 

I  am  extremely  sorry  that  the  question  has  ever  be- 
come necessary  to  be  agitated,  and  that  there  should 
be  a  decision  upon  it  No  one  in  this  house  will  live 
long  enough  to  see  an  end  put  to  the  mischief  which 
will  be  the  result  of  the  doctrine  which  has  been  incul- 
cated; but  the  arrow  is  shot,  and  the  wound  already 
given.  .  .  . 

.  . .  .  There  can  be  no  doubt,  my  Lords,  but  that  the 
inhabitants  of  the  colonies  are  as  much  represented  in 
Parliament,  as  the  greatest  part  of  the  people  in  Eng- 
land are  represented;  among  nine  millions  of  whom 
there  are  eight  which  have  no  votes  in  electing  mem- 
bers of  parliament.  Every  objection  therefore  to  the 
dependency  of  the  colonies  upon  Parliament  which 
arises  to  it  upon  the  ground  of  representation  goes  to 


CAUSES    OF    AMERICAN    REVOLUTION.  63 

the  whole  present  constitution  of  Great  Britain;  and 
I  suppose  it  is  not  meant  to  new  model  that  too,  .  .  . 
A  member  of  Parliament,  chosen  for  any  borough, 
represents  not  only  the  constituents  and  inhabitants  of 
that  particular  place,  but  he  represents  the  inhabitants 
of  every  other  borough  in  Great-Britain.  He  repree2nts 
the  city  of  London  and  all  the  other  commons  of  this 
land,  and  the  inhabitants  of  all  the  colonies  and  domin- 
ions of  Great-Britain;  and  is  in  duty  and  conscience, 
bound  to  take  care  of  their  interests. 

I  am  far  from  bearing  any  ill  will  to  the  Americans; 
they  are  a  very  good  people,  and  I  have  long  known 
them,  I  began  life  with  them,  and  owe  much  to  them, 
having  been  much  concerned  in  the  plantation  causes 
before  the  privy  council;  and,  so  I  become  a  good  deal 
acquainted  with  American  affairs  and  people.  I  dare 
say  their  heat  will  soon  be  over,  when  they  come  to 
feel  a  little  the  consequences  of  their  opposition  to 
the  Legislature.  Anarchy  always  cures  itself;  but  the 
ferment  will  continue  so  much  the  longer,  while  hot- 
headed men  there,  find  that  there  are  persons  of  weight 
and  character  to  support  and  justify  them  here.  .  .  . 

"You  may  abdicate  your  right  over  the  colonies. 
Take  care  my  Lords,  how  you  do  so,  for  such  an  act 
will  be  irrevocable.  Proceed,  then,  my  Lords,  with 
spirit  and  firmness,  and  when  you  shall  have  estab- 
lished your  authority,  it  will  then  be  time  to  show  your 
lenity. 

The  Americans,  as  I  said  before,  are  a  very  good 
people,  and  I  wish  them  exceedingly  well;  but  they 
are  heated  and  inflamed.  The  noble  Lord  who  spoke 
before  ended  with  a  prayer.  I  can  not  end  better  than 
by  saying  to  it,  Amen;  and  in  the  words  of  Maurice, 
prince  of  Orange,  concerning  the  Hollanders,  "God 
bless  this  industrious,  frugal,  and  well-meaning,  but 
easily  deluded  people."— Goodrich,  British  Eloquence,  p. 
148  f. 

The  following  arguments  are  taken  from  the 
protest  that  was  entered  in  the  Lords'  journal 
by  some  of  the  members  of  that  house  against 
the  proposed  repeal  of  the  Stamp  Act: 

This  bouse  has  most  solemnly  asserted  and  declared, 
first,— 'That  the  King's  majesty,  by  and  with  the  advise 


64  AMERICAN    HISTORY    STUDIES. 

and  consent  of  the  Lords  spiritual  and  temporal,  and 
commons  of  Great  Britain,  in  Parliament  assembled, 
had,  hath,  and  of  right  ought  to  have,  full  power  and 
authority  to  make  laws  and  statutes  of  sufficient  force 
and  validity  to  bind  the  colonies  and  people  of  Amer- 
ica, subject  to  the  crown  of  Gt.  Britain  in  all  cases 
whatsoever.'  .Secondly,  'That  tumults  and  insurrections 
of  the  most  dangerous  nature  have  been  raised  and  car- 
ried on  in  several  of  the  North-American  colonies,  in 
open  defiance  of  the  power  and  dignity  of  his  Majesty's 
Government,  and  in  manifest  violation  of  the  laws  and 
legislative  authority  of  this  Kingdom.'  Thirdly,  'That 
the  said  tumults  and  insurrections  have  been  en- 
couraged and  inflamed,  by  sundry  votes  and  resolutions 
passed  in  several  of  the  assemblies  of  the  said  prov- 
inces, derogatory  to  the  honour  of  his  Majesty's  Gov- 
ernment, and  destructive  of  the  legal  and  constitu- 
tional dependency  of  said  colonies,  on  the  Imperial 
Crown  and  Parliament  of  Great-Britain.' 

"2dly,  Because  the  laws,  which  this  bill  now  proposes 
to  repeal,  was  passed  in  the  other  house  with  very  little 
opposition  and  in  this  without  one  dissentient  voice, 
during  the  last  session  of  Parliament,  which  we  pre- 
sume, if  it  had  been  wholly,  and  fundamentally  wrong, 
could  not  possibly  have  happened;" 

4thly,  Because  it  appears  to  us,  that  a  most  essential 
branch  of  that  authority,  the  power  of  taxation,  cannot 
be  properly,  equitably,  or  impartially  exercised,  if  it 
does  not  extend  itself  to  all  the  Members  of  the  State, 
in  proportion  to  their  respective  abilities,  but  suffers 
a  part  to  be  exempt  from  a  due  share  of  those  burdens 
which  the  public  exigencies  require  to  be  imposed  upon 
the  whole;  a  partiality,  which  is  directly  repugnant  to 
the  trust  reposed  by  the  people  in  every  legislature, 
and  destructive  of  that  confidence  on  which  all  Govern- 
ment is  founded. 
•  i  •  •  •  •  • 

Cthly,  Because  not  only  the  right  but  the  expediency 
and  necessity  of  the  supreme  Legislature's  exerting  its 
authority  to  lay  a  general  tax  on  our  American  colonies, 
whenever  the  wants  of  the  public  make  it  fitting  and 
reasonable  that  all  the  provinces  should  contribute,  in 
a  proper  proportion,  to  the  defence  of  the  whole,  appear 
to  U3  undeniable. 


CAUSES   OF    AMERICAN    REVOLUTION.  65 

7thly,  Because  the  reasons  assigned  in  the  public 
resolutions  of  the  provincial  Assemblies,  in  the  North 
American  colonies,  for  their  disobeying  the  Stamp- 
Act,  viz.,  "That  they  are  not  represented  ia  the  parlia- 
ment of  Gt.-Britain,"  extends  to  all  other  laws  of  what 
nature  soever,  which  that  Parliament  has  enacted,  or 
shall  enact,  to  bind  them  in  times  to  come,  and  must 
(if  admitted)  let  them  absolutely  free  from  any  obedi- 
ence to  the  power  of  the  British  Legislature.  .  .  . 

Sthly,  Because  the  appearance  of  weakness  and 
timidity  in  the  Government  and  Parliament  of  this 
kingdom,  which  a  concession  of  this  nature  may  too 
probably  carry  with  it,  has  a  manifest  tendency  to  draw 
on  farther  insults,  and,  by  lessening  the  respect  of  his 
Majesty's  subjects  to  the  dignity  of  his  crown,  and 
authority  of  his  laws,  throw  the  whole  British  empire 
into  a  miserable  state  of  confusion  and  anarchy,  with 
which  it  seems,  by  many  symptoms,  to  be  dangerously 
threatened.— Parliamentary  Debates,  1761-1768,  p.  S68  f. 

From  the  Declaration  of  Eights  of  the  Conti- 
nental Congress  at  Philadelphia,  in  1774 : 

Whereupon  the  deputies  so  appointed  being  now 
assembled,  in  a  full  and  free  representation  of  these 
colonies,  taking  into  their  most  serious  consideration, 
the  best  means  of  attaining  the  ends  aforesaid,  do,  in 
the  first  place,  as  Englishmen,  their  ancestors,  in  like 
cases  have  usually  done,  for  effecting  and  vindicating 
their  rights  and  liberties,  Declare, — 

That  the  inhabitants  of  the  English  colonies  in  North 
America,  by  the  immutable  laws  of  nature,  the  princi- 
ples of  the  English  constitution,  and  the  several  char- 
ters or  compacts,  have  the  following  Rights: — 

Resolved,  N.  c.  D.  1.  That  they  are  entitled  to  life, 
liberty,  and  property,  and  that  they  have  never  ceded 
to  any  sovereign  power  whatever,  a  right  to  dispose  of 
either  without  their  consent. 

Resolced,  N.  c.  D.  2.  That  our  ancestors,  who  first  set- 
tled these  colonies,  were  at  the  time  of  their  emigration 
from  the  mother  country,  entitled  to  all  the  rights, 
liberties,  and  immunities,  of  full  and  natural-born  sub- 
jects, within  the  realm  of  England. 

Resolved,  N.  c.  D.  .  3.  That  by  such  emigration,  they  by 
no  means  forfeited,  surrendered,  or  lost,  any  of  those 
rights,  but  that  they  were,  and  their  descendants  now 


66  AMERICAN    HISTORY    STUDIES. 

are  entitled  to  the  exercise  and  enjoyment  of  all  such 
of  them,  as  their  local  and  other  circumstances  enable 
them  to  exercise  and  enjoy. 

Resolved,  4.  That  the  foundation  of  English  liberty, 
and  of  all  free  government,  is  a  right  in  the  people  to 
participate  in  their  legislative  council;  and  as  the 
English  colonists  are  not  represented,  and  from  their 
local  and  other  circumstances,  cannot  properly  be,  in 
the  British  Parliament,  they  are  entitled  to  a  free  and 
exclusive  power  of  legislation  in  their  several  provincial 
legislatures,  where  their  right  of  representation  can 
alone  be  preserved,  In  all  cases  of  taxation  and  internal 
polity,  subject  only  to  the  negative  of  their  sovereign, 
in  such  manner  as  has  been  heretofore  used  and  accus- 
tomed.— Preston,  Documents  Illustrative  of  American  His- 
tory. 

The  hiring  of  the  Hessians  and  other  German 
troops  brought  on  a  long  debate  in  the  Com- 
mons, from  which  the  following  extracts  are 
made: 

MR.  Fox:  I  have  always  said  that  the  war  carried 
on  against  the  Americans  is  unjust,  that  it  is  not  prac- 
ticable. I  say,  that  the  means  made  use  of  are  by 
no  means  such  as  will  obtain  the  end.  I  shall  confine 
myself  singly  to  this  ground,  and  shew  this  bill,  like 
every  other  measure,  proves  the  want  of  policy,  the 
folly  and  madness  of  the  present  set  of  ministers.  I 
was  in  great  hopes,  that  they  had  seen  their  error,  and 
had  given  over  their  endeavor  to  coerce,  and  to  carry 
on  war  against  America,  by  means  of  Acts  of  Parlia- 
ment, In  order  to  induce  Americans  to  submit  to  your 
legislature,  you  pass  laws  against  them,  cruel  and 
tyrannical  in  the  extreme.  If  they  complain  of  one 
law,  your  answer  to  their  complaint  is  to  pass  another 
more  rigorous  and  severe  than  the  former;  but  they 
are  in  rebellion,  you  say;  if  they  are,  treat  them  as 
rebels  arc  wont  to  be  treated. 

I  have  ever  understood  it  as  a  first  principle,  that  in 
rebellion  you  punish  the  individuals,  but  spare  the 
country;  in  a  war  against  the  enemy,  you  spare  indi- 
viduals, and  lay  waste  the  country. 

This  last  has  been  invariably  your  conduct  against 
America.  I  suggested  this  to  you  when  the  Boston, 
port  bill  passed.  I  advised  you  to  find  out  the  offend- 


CAUSES   OF    AMERICAN    REVOLUTION.  67 

ing  persons  and  to  punish  them;    but  what  did  you  do 

instead  of  this?  You  laid  the  whole  town  of  Boston 
under  terrible  contribution,  punishing  the  innocent  with 
the  guilty.  You  answer,  that  you  could  not  come  at  the 
guilty.  This  very  answer  shews  how  unfit,  and  how 
unable  you  are,  to  govern  America. 

MR.  DEMPSTER  said,  he  was  sorry  to  see  such  a  dis- 
position in  administration  to  stifle  and  squash  all 
enquiry.  .  .  .  He  then  turned,  and  took  a  short  view 
of  the  Quebec  bill,  and  concluded,  by  solemnly  averring, 
that  in  his  opinion,  no  Turkish  emperor  ever  sent  a 
more  arbitrary  and  oppressive  mandate,  by  a  favorite 
bashaw,  to  a  distant  province,  than  that  bill  was  with 
the  instructions  to  the  governor,  which  accompanied  it. 

MR.  D.  HARTLEY:  In  the  course  of  our  debates  upon 
American  measures,  I  frequently  hear  the  terms  of 
rebellion  and  rebels  made  use  of,  which  I  shall  never 
adopt;  not  only  because  I  would  avoid  every  term  of 
acrimony  which  might  increase  the  ill-blood  between 
us  and  our  fellow-subjects  in  America,  but  likewise 
thinking  as  I  do,  that  the  ministry  of  this  country  have 
been  in  every  stage  the  aggressors:  I  never  will, "as  a 
Whig  of  revolutionary  principles,  confound  terms  so 
fundamentally  the  reverse  to  each  other,  as  defensive 
resistance  in  the  support  of  constitutional  rights,  with 
unprovoked  and  active  treason.  The  colonies  have  been 
condemned  unheard.  I  wish  to  enter  my  protest  once 
for  all,  that  I  shall  always  think  that  our  American 
fellow-subjects  have  been  driven  to  resistance  in  their 
own  defence,  and  in  support  of  those  very  claims  which 
we  ourselves  have  successfully  taken  up  arms  in  former 
times,  to  secure  us  from  the  violence  and  tyrannical 
pretensions  of  the  House  of  Stuart.  These  rights  are 
the  giving  and  granting  freely  our  own  property,  and 
the  security  of  charters. 

HONORABLE  JAMES  LETTRELL:  The  Americans  have 
never  sought  nor  desire  to  be  independent  of  Eng- 
land. They  thought  ministry  misinformed,  therefore 
they  requested  to  be  heard,  and  however  artfully  they 
may  have  been  deprived  of  that  privilege  before  this 
House,  I  do  respect  it  as  the  grand  judicial  inquest 
of  the  nation,  which  must  be  too  high  ...  to 
condemn  an  individual  without  a  hearing,  much  less 


68  AMERICAN    HISTORY    STUDIES. 

three  millions  of  subjects.  Yet  'tis  said  that  Parlia- 
ment declared  ihis  war  against  America;  let  who  will 
have  done  it,  I  have  seen  enough  of  that  country  to 
think  it  my  duty  to  endeavor  to  express,  how  much 
I  am  adverse  to  so  iniquitious,  so  impolitic  a  persecu- 
tion. .  .  .  Sir,  I  comprehend  that  ministry  new 
apply  to  Parliament  for  seventeen  thousand  Germans 
to  send  to  America,  Good  God,  for  what  end?  To  en- 
slave a  hundred  and  fifty  thousand  of  their  own  coun- 
trymen, many  of  whom  fled  from  tyrants  to  seek  our 
protection. 

MR.  ALDERMAN  BULL:  I  cannot,  Sir,  .  .  .  forbear 
to  express  my  astonishment  .  .  .  that  ...  so 
many  gentlemen  should  have  been  prevailed  upon  .  . 
to  approve  and  sanctify  those  cruel  and  arbitrary  meas- 
ures .  .  .  by  an  unfeeling,  an  unrelenting  admin- 
istration, who  have  dared  to  abuse  the  throne  by  their 
wicked  and  sanguinary  councils,  and  whose  whole  con- 
duct has  proved  them  entirely  destitute  of  every  prin- 
ciple of  justice,  humanity,  and  the  religion  of  their 
country.  •  •  •  Sir,  is  it  certain,  is  it  probable  that 
the  exertions  of  ministerial  tyranny  and  revenge  will 
be  much  longer  permitted?  ...  Or  can  it  be  ex- 
pected that  the  people  of  this  country,  reduced  by 
thousands  to  beggary  and  want,  will  remain  idle  spec- 
tators till  the  sword  is  at  their  breasts,  or  dragoons  at 
their  doors?  .  .  . 

The  war  which  you  are  now  waging  is  an  unjust  one, 
It  is  founded  in  oppression,  and  its  end  will  be  distress 
and  disgrace.  ...  I  shall  not  now  trouble  the 
House  further,  than  to  declare  my  abhorrence  of  all  the 
measures  which  have  been  adopted  against  America; 
measures  equally  inimical  to  the  principles  of  com- 
merce, to  the  spirit  of  the  constitution,  and  to  the 
honor,  to  the  faith,  and  the  true  dignity  of  the  British 

nation. — Parliamentary  Debates,  ffl5-'76,  pp.  20-106. 
j> 

QUESTIONS. 

1.  In  what  ways  were  the  Navigation  acts  connected 
with  the  American  Revolution?  2.  What  industries 
were  encouraged  in  America?  3.  What  ones  discour- 
aged? 4.  Why  do  the  people  of  Boston  say  their  trade 
has  been  bad  for  a  long  time,  in  1764?  5.  What  reasons 
are  given  in  1764  against  taxation  by  British  parlia- 
ment? 6.  What  reasons  assigned  for  opposing? 
7.  Would  they  have  been  willing  to  to  taxed,  if  they 
had  had  representatives  In  Parliament?  8.  What  were 


CAUSES   OF   AMERICAN    REVOLUTION.  69 

-"••Mirte.  Of  Admiralty?  9.  How  were  their  powers  ex- 
tended? 10.  Were  there  any  new  reasons  given  in  1765 
that  you  do  not  find  in  1764?  11.  Why  do  the  Vir- 
ginians in  1769  speak  of  right  of  petition?  12.  What 
new  reasons  of  discontent  mentioned  in  1769?  13.  Com- 
pare arguments  of  P.  Henry  with  those  of  S.  Adams. 

14.  Why    does    Franklin    object   to    the    Stamp    Act? 

15.  How  did  the  Americans  feel  towards  the  English 
as  set  forth  by  Franklin?    16.  Did  he  distinguish  be- 
tween   internal    and    external    taxation?    17.  Did    the 
colonies  in  later  years,  1768-'76?    18.  What  privileges 
did  he  claim  for  the  colonies?    19.  What  foundation  for 
these  claims?    20.  What  force  in  the  arguments  of  Mr. 
Pownall?    21.  Would  we  reason  now  much  in  the  same 
way?    22.  Is  Franklin's  answer  satisfactory?    23.  Sum- 
marize the  arguments  of  Franklin  in  Causes  of  Amer- 
ican Discontent.     24.  How  does  Stephen  Hopkins'  argu- 
ment  differ  from  the   others?    25.  What   new   points 
does  he  suggest?    26.  Are  the  Farmer's  letters  convinc- 
ing?   27.  Is  it  true  that  any  authority  which  may  be 
abused   ought  not  to  be  granted?    28.  What  are  the 
arguments  of  Mansfield  in  regard  to  right  of  Parlia- 
ment to  tax?    29.  Does  present  doctrine  follow  his  view 
or  that  of  Dickinson  and  Chatham?    30.  Were  all  the 
American  arguments  based  on  idea  of  nationality  or 
state  sovereignty?    31.  How  did  the  colonists  regard 
the   English   Constitution,    as    written   or   unwritten? 
32.  How  did  they  differ  in  regard  to  meaning  of  repre- 
sentation?   33.  Did  the  Lords'   protest  set  forth   any 
good   grounds  for  their  position?    34.  Compare  ideas 
of  Stamp  Act  Congress  with  ideas  and  arguments  of 
Congress  of  1774.    35.  What  points  does  John  Rutledge 
emphasize?    36.  Why  were  not  the  colonies  virtually 
represented  when  they  had  such  friends  in  Parliament 
as   are   cited   from   Parliamentary   Debates?    37.  Was 
there  danger  of  over-taxation  with  such  men  there? 
38.  Would  not  agitation  alone  in  time  have  secured 
redress?    39.  How  far  was  the  war  caused  by  improper 
men  in  English  cabinet?    40.  Judged  by  the  Declara- 
tion of  Independence,  who  caused  the  war?    41.  Can 
you  find  proof  that  all  the  charges  contained  in  th« 
Declaration  of  Independence  were  well  founded? 


American  History  Studies 


No.  4. 


DECEMBER,  1897. 


STEPS  IN  THE  FORMATION 

OF  THE 

UNITED  STATES  CONSTITUTION. 


SELECTIONS  MADE  FROM  THE  SOURCES 


H.  W.  OALDWELL, 

UNIVERSITY  OF  NEBRASKA. 


J.  H.  MILLER,  Publisher, 

LINCOLN,  NEBRASKA. 


Yearly  Subscription,  40  cents. 


Single  Copy,  5  cents. 


PUBLISHED  MONTHLY,  EXCEPT  JULY  AND  AUGUST. 

Entered  as  second-class  matter  at  the  Post  Office,  Lincoln,  Nebraska, 
U.  6.  A. 


AMERICAN  HISTORY  STUDIES. 


STEPS  IN  THE  FORMATION  OF  THE 
UNITED  STATES  CONSTITUTION. 

the  first  place  it  must  be  noticed  that  our 
constitution  is  a  growth  and  not  a  creation 
of  any  one  moment  in  our  history.  Its 
elements  may  be  traced  back  to  the  days  when 
our  Teutonic  ancestors  were  yet  in  the  swamps 
and  forests  of  Germany.  On  American  soil  sev- 
eral stages  in  its  growth  may  be  marked.  In 
the  New  England  confederacy,  in  the  Albany 
plan  of  union  of  1754,  in  the  various  plans  pro- 
posed about  1774  and  1775,  in  the  Articles  of 
Confederation  of  1781,  we  see  successive  move- 
ments, all  essential  parts  of  the  ultimate  result 
obtained  in  the  convention  of  1787.  Along 
another  line  of  development  we  may  also  trace 
the  growth  of  the  forces  which  became  factors 
in  this  result.  The  charters  granted  by  the 
crown  to  Virginia,  to  Massachusetts,  to  Rhode 
Island,  to  Connecticut,  and  to  other  colonies, 
the  charters  granted  by  the  proprietors  to  Mary- 
land, to  Pennsylvania,  etc.,  furnished  many 
elements  for  the  final  structure.  The  principles 
of  the  common  law,  and  the  English  constitu- 
tion itself  directly,  were  not  without  great  in- 
fluence. Anything  like  a  complete  study,  there- 
fore, of  the  genesis  of  our  constitution  would 
necessitate  an  elaborate  collection  of  the  ma- 
terial'contained  in  the  foregoing  suggestions. 
Our  aim  will  be  rather  to  trace  the  causes  which 
were  the  immediate  occasion  for  the  constitu- 
tional convention,  and  to  note  the  more  impor- 


FORMATION    OF   CONSTITUTION.  73 

tant  steps  in  the  years  which  Mr.  Fiske  has  so 
well  called  "The  Critical  Period."  Also  in 
studying  the  formation  of  the  constitution  it 
must  ever  be  kept  in  mind  that  there  were  still 
in  existence  the  two  forces  we  have  noticed  at 
work  in  the  colonial  period,  the  one  tending  to 
union,  and  the  other  to  localism.  They  oper- 
ated at  this  time  both  as  factors  in  determining 
whether  there  should  be  a  new  constitution  at 
all,  and  also  in  influencing  the  nature  of  the 
union  that  should  be  formed.  The  question  of 
the  location  of  sovereignty  was  at  issue.  Did 
it  rest  in  the  state,  or  in  the  union?  Should  it 
be  placed  in  the  people  as  a  whole,  or  should  it 
be  left  in  the  hands  of  the  local  powers?  The 
compromises  in  the  constitution  must  be  traced 
to  their  causes  if  we  are  to  have  a  full  under- 
standing of  the  forces  which  were  at  work  at 
the  time.  Sectionalism  may  be  seen  in  many 
incidents  occurring  during  these  years,  and  es- 
pecially in  the  debates  in  the  constitutional  and 
ratifying  conventions.  Slavery  as  a  question 
of  a  distracting  import  crops  out  in  many  places. 
It  was  not  yet  at  all  an  overshadowing  issue, 
but  it  made  itself  felt.  Class  interests  and  class 
feelings  are  not  absent.  Creditor  and  debtor, 
city  and  country,  coast  region  and  interior,  are 
all  factors  in  determining  the  final  form  of  the 
struggle  and  its  result. 

In  connection  with  the  quotations  from  the 
documentary  records,  extracts  have  been  made 
from  the  writings  of  a  few  of  the  great  states- 
men of  the  time.  It  was  the  intention  to  have 
presented  the  views  of  a  greater  number  of  the 
statesmen  of  that  day,  but  the  usual  plea  has 
i  o  be  made  that  it  takes  a  great  amount  of  time 
to  go  through  hundreds  of  pages  of  matter  to 
find  out  the  quotable  material,  and  the  time 
was  not  at  hand  It  is  believed,  however,  that 
the  ^xtra^ts  made  are  directly  to  the  point,  and 


74  AMERICAN   HISTORY    STUDIES. 

will  present  the  ideas  of  the  day  very  sharply 
and  vividly, 

Thomas  Paine,  in  1780,  in  "Public  Good,"  an 
article  arguing  that  the  western  territory 
should  belong  to  the  United  States  collectively, 
instead  of  to  Virginia  and  other  states  individu- 
ally, concludes  with  these  remarkable  words: 

I  shall  in  this  place  take  the  opportunity  of  renewing 
a  hint  which  I  formerly  threw  out  in  the  Pamphlet 
"Common  Sense,"  and  which  the  States  will,  sooner  or 
later,  see  the  convenience,  if  not  the  necessity,  of  adopt- 
ing; which  is,  that  of  electing  a  continental  conven- 
tion, for  the  purpose  of  forming  a  continental  constitu- 
tion, describing  and  defining  the  powers  and  authority 
of  Congress. — Paints  Writings  (Conway),  vol.  II,  p.  66. 

Washington's  letters  at  least  as  early  as  1780 
show  that  he  saw  the  necessity  of  a  stronger 
bond  of  union  among  the  states  than  the  one 
which  existed.  Among  other  letters  we  find 
one  to  Hamilton,  4  March,  1783. 

The  States  cannot  surely  be  so  devoid  of  common 
sense,  common  honesty,  and  common  policy,  as  to  re- 
fuse their  aid  on  a  full,  clear,  and  candid  representation 
of  facts  from  Congress.  .  .  .  To  me  who  know  noth- 
ing of  the  business  before  Congress,  nor  of  the  arcana, 
it  appears  that  such  a  measure  would  tend  to  promote 
the  public  weal;  for  it  is  clearly  my  opinion,  unless 
Congress  have  powers  competent  to  all  general  pur- 
poses, that  the  distresses  we  have  encountered,  the 
expense  we  have  occurred,  and  the  blood  we  have  spilt, 
will  avail  us  nothing. — Washington,  Works,  vol.  VIII,  p. 
S91. 

On  March  31,  1783,  he  writes  again  to  Hamil- 
ton in  these  words: 

My  wish  to  see  the  union  of  these  States  established 
upon  liberal  and  permanent  principles,  and  inclination 
to  contribute  my  mite  in  pointing  out  the  defects  of  the 
present  constitution,  are  equally  great.  ...  No 
man  in  the  United  States  is  or  can  be  more  deeply  im- 
pressed with  a  necessity  of  a  reform  in  our  present 


FORMATION    OP    CONSTITUTION.  75 

confederation  than  myself.  No  man  perhaps  has  felt 
the  bad  effects  of  it  more  sensibly;  for  to  the  defects 
thereof,  and  want  of  power  in  Congress,  may  justly  be 
ascribed  the  prolongation  of  the  war,  .  .  . — Wash- 
ington, Works,  vol.  Till,  p.  410. 

To  Lafayette  he  writes: 

To  avert  these  evils,  to  form  a  new  constitution  .  . 
is  a  duty  incumbent  on  every  man  .  .  . 

In  Washington's  Circular  Letter  to  the  Gov- 
ernors, 8  June,  1783,  he  sets  forth  his  hopes  and 
his  fears  again  in  eloquent  words: 

Such  is  our  situation,  and  such  are  our  prospects; 
but,  notwithstanding  .  .  .  happiness  is  ours,  if  we 
have  a  disposition  to  seize  the  occasion  and  make  it 
our  own;  yet  it  appears  to  me  there  is  an  option  still 
left  to  the  United  States  of  America,  that  ...  it 
depends  upon  their  conduct,  whether  they  will  be  re- 
spectable and  prosperous,  or  contemptible  and  misera- 
ble, as  a  nation.  This  is  the  time  of  their  political 
probation;  this  is  the  moment  when  the  eyes  of  the 
whole  world  are  turned  upon  them;  this  is  the  moment 
to  establish  or  ruin  their  national  character  forever; 
this  is  the  favorable  moment  to  give  such  a  tone  to  our 
federal  government  as  will  enable  it  to  answer  the 
ends  of  its  institution,  or  this  may  be  the  ill-fated 
moment  for  relaxing  the  powers  of  the  Union,  annihi- 
lating the  cement  of  the  confederation,  and  exposing  us 
to  become  the  sport  of  European  politics,  which  may 
play  one  State  against  another  .  .  .  For,  according 
to  the  system  of  policy  the  States  shall  adopt  at  this 
moment,  they  will  stand  or  fall;  and  by  their  confirma- 
tion or  lapse  it  is  yet  to  be  decided  whether  the  revolu- 
tion must  ultimately  be  considered  a  blessing  or  a 
curse:  a  blessing  or  a  curse,  not  to  the  present  age 
alone,  for  with  our  fate  will  the  destiny  of  unborn 
millions  be  involved,  .  .  . 

There  are  four  things  which  .  .  .  are  essential 
.  .  .  to  tho  existence  of  the  United  States,  as  an 
independent  power. 

First.  An  indissoluble  union  of  the  States  under  one 
federal  head. 

Second.  A  sacred  regard  to  public  justice. 


76  AMERICAN    HISTORY    STUDIES. 

Third.  The  adoption  of  a  proper  peace  establishment; 
and, 

Fourth.  The  prevalence  of  that  pacific  and  friendly 
disposition  among  the  people  of  the  United  States 
which  will  induce  them  to  forget  their  local  prejudices 
and  policies;  .  .  .—Washington,  Works,  vol.  Till,  p. 
441-'48;  also  in  "Old  South  Leaflets." 

The  following  additional  extracts  from  Wash- 
ington's letters  show  his  opinions  in  regard  to 
the  conditions  of  the  times,  and  the  necessity 
for  a  stronger  government. 

Notwithstanding  the  jealous  and  contracted  temper, 
which  seems  to  prevail  in  some  of  the  States,  yet  I 
cannot  but  hope  and  believe,  that  the  good  sense  of  the 
people  will  ultimately  get  the  better  of  their  prejudices; 
and  that  order  and  sound  policy,  though  they  do  not 
come  so  often  as  one  would  wish,  will  be  produced  from 
the  present  unsettled  and  deranged  state  of  public 
affairs.  Indeed,  I  am  happy  to  observe  that  the  political 
disposition  is  actually  ameliorating  every  day.  Several 
of  the  States  have  manifested  an  inclination  to  invest 
Congress  with  more  ample  powers.  .  .  . — To  Jona- 
than Trumoull,  Jr.,  Jan.  5,  1784- 

That  the  prospect  before  us  is  .  .  .  fair,  none  can 
deny.  [But]  the  disinclination  of  the  individual  States 
to  yield  competent  powers  to  Congress  for  the  federal 
government,  their  unreasonable  jealousy  of  that  body 
and  of  one  another,  and  the  disposition,  which  seems  to 
pervade  each,  of  being  all-wise  and  all-powerful  within 
itself,  will,  if  there  is  not  a  change  in  the  system,  be 
our  downfall  as  a  nation,  .  .  .  and  I  think  we  have 
opposed  Great  Britain,  and  have  arrived  at  the  present 
state  of  peace  and  independency,  to  very  little  purpose, 
if  we  cannot  tonquer  our  own  prejudices.  .  .  .  But 
I  have  many  [fears]  and  powerful  ones  indeed,  which 
predict  the  worst  consequences,  from  a  half-starved, 
limping  government,  that  appears  to  be  always  moving 
upon  crutches,  and  tottering  at  every  step.  .  .  My 
political  creed,  therefore,  is,  to  be  wise  in  the  choice  of 
delegates,  .  .  give  them  competent  powers  for  all 
federal  purposes,  support  them  in  the  due  exercise 
thereof,  .  .  . — To  Benjamin  Harrison,  18  January, 
1784. 


FORMATION    OF   CONSTITUTION.  77 

We  are  either  a  united  people  under  one  head  and  for 
federal  purposes,  or  we  are  thirteen  independent  sover- 
eignties, eternally  counteracting  each  other.  If  the 
former,  whatever  such  a  majority  of  the  States,  as  the 
constitution  points  out,  conceives  to  be  for  the  benefit 
of  the  whole,  should  ...  be  submitted  to  by  the 
minority.  ...  I  confess  to  you  candidly,  that  I  can 
foresee  no  evil  greater  than  disunion:  ...  As  you 
have  asked  the  question,  I  answer,  I  do  not  know  that 
we  can  enter  upon  a  war  of  imposts  with  Great  Britain, 
or  any  other  foreign  power;  but  we  are  certain,  that 
this  war  has  been  waged  against  us  by  the  former; 
professedly  upon  a  belief  that  we  never  could  unite  in 
opposition  to  it;  and  I  believe  there  is  no  way  of  put- 
ting an  end  to  [it]  .  .  .  but  to  convince  them  of  the 
contrary.  .  .  . 

To  sum  up  the  whole,  I  foresee  .  .  .  the  many  ad- 
vantages which  will  arise  from  giving  powers  of  this 
kind  to  Congress  .  .  .  without  any  evil  save  that 
which  may  proceed  from  inattention,  or  want  of  wis- 
dom in  the  formation  of  the  act;  while  without  them, 
we  stand  in  a  ridiculous  view  in  the  eyes  of  the  nations 
of  the  world,  with  whom  we  are  attempting  to  enter 
into  commercial  treaties,  without  the  means  of  carrying 
them  into  effect;  who  must  see  and  feel  that  the  Union 
or  the  States  individually  are  sovereigns,  as  best  suits 
their  purposes;  in  a  word  that  we  are  one  nation  to- 
day and  thirteen  to-morrow. — To  James  McHenry,  22 
August,  1785. 

The  war  .  .  .  has  terminated  most  advanta- 
geously for  America,  and  a  fair  field  is  presented  to  our 
view;  but  I  confess  to  you  freely,  dear  Sir,  that  I  do 
not  think  we  possess  wisdom  or  justice  enough  to  culti- 
vate it  properly.  Illiberality,  jealousy,  and  local  policy 
mix  too  much  in  all  our  public  councils  for  the  good 
government  of  the  Union.  In  a  word,  the  confedera- 
tion appears  to  me  to  be  little  more  than  a  shadow 
without  substance,  and  Congress  a  nugatory  .body,  .  . 
— To  James  Warren,  7  October,  1785. 

My  sentiments  with  respect  to  the  federal  government 
are  well  known.  Publicly  and  privately  have  they  been 
communicated  without  reserve;  but  my  opinion  is,  that 
there  is  more  wickedness  than  ignorance  in  the  conduct 
of  the  States,  or,  in  other  words,  in  the  conduct  of  those 
who  have  too  much  influence  in  the  government  of 


78  AMERICAN    HISTORY    STUDIES. 

them;  and  until  the  curtain  is  withdrawn,  and  the 
private  views  and  selfish  principles,  upon  which  these 
men  act,  are  exposed  to  public  notice,  I  have  little  hope 
of  amendment  without  another  convention. — To  Henry 
Lee,  5  April,  1786. 

I  coincide  perfectly  with  you  .  .  .  that  there  are 
errors  in  our  national  government  which  call  for  cor- 
rection; .  .  .  but  I  shall  find  myself  happily  mis- 
taken if  the  remedies  are  at  hand.  We  are  certainly  in 
a  delicate  situation;  but  my  fear  is  that  the  people  are 
not  yet  sufficiently  misled  to  retract  from  error.  To  be 
plainer,  I  think  there  is  more  wickedness  than  igno- 
rance mixed  in  our  councils.  .  .  .  That  it  is  neces- 
sary to  revise  and  amend  the  articles  of  confederation, 
I  entertain  no  doubt;  but  what  may  be  the  conse- 
quences of  such  an  attempt  is  doubtful.  .  .  . 

I  think  often  of  ow  situation,  and  view  it  with  con- 
cern. From  the  high  ground  we  stood  upon,  from  the 
plain  path  which  invited  our  footsteps,  to  be  so  fallen, 
so  lost,  is  really  mortifying.  But  virtue,  I  fear,  has  in 
a  great  degree  taken  its  departure  from  our  land,  and 
the  want  of  a  disposition  to  do  justice  is  the  source  of 
the  national  embarrassments;  .  .  . — To  John  Jay,  18 
May,  1786. 

Is  it  not  among  the  most  unaccountable  things  in 
nature,  that  the  representatives  of  a  great  country 
should  generally  be  so  thin  as  not  to  be  able  to  execute 
the  functions  of  government.  To  what  is  this  to  be 
ascribed?  ...  Be  the  causes  what  they  may,  it  is 
shameful  and  disgusting.  In  a  word,  it  hurts  us.  Our 
character  as  a  nation  is  dwindling;  and  what  it  must 
come  to,  ...  our  enemies  have  foretold;  for  in 
truth  we  seem  either  not  capable,  or  not  willing  to  take 
care  of  ourselves.  .  .  . 

It  was  impolitic  and  unfortunate  if  not  unjust  in  these 
States  to  pass  laws,  which  by  fair  construction  might 
be  considered  as  infractions  of  the  treaty  of  peace.  It 
is  good  policy  at  all  times  to  place  one's  adversary  in 
the  wrong.  Had  we  observed  good  faith,  and  the  west- 
ern posts  had  then  been  withheld  from  us  by  Great 
Britain,  we  might  have  appealed  to  God  and  man  for 
justice;  .  .  .  But  now  we  cannot  do  this  .  .  . — 
To  William  Grays™,  26  July,  1786. 

The  greater  part  of  the  Union  seems  to  be  convinced 
of  the  necessity  of  federal  measures,  and  of  investing 


FORMATION    OF    CONSTITUTION.  79 

Congress  with  the  power  of  regulating  the  commerce  of 
the  whole. — To  de  la  Luzerne,  1  August,  1786. 

What  astonishing  changes  a  few  years  are  capable  of 
producing.  I  am  told  that  even  respectable  characters 
speak  of  a  monarchical  form  of  government  without 
horror.  From  thinking  proceeds  speaking;  thence  to 
acting  is  often  but  a  single  step.  But  how  irrevocable 
and  tremendous!  What  a  triumph  for  our  enemies  to 
verify  their  predictions!  What  a  triumph  for  the  ad- 
vocates of  despotism  to  find  that  we  are  incapable  of 
governing  ourselves,  and  that  systems  founded  on  the 
basis  of  equal  liberty  are  merely  ideal  and  fallacious! — 
To  John  Jay,  1  August,  1786. 

You  talk,  my  good  Sir,  of  employing  influence  to  ap- 
pease the  present  tumults  in  Massachusetts.  I  know 
not  where  that  influence  is  to  be  found,  or,  if  attainable, 
that  it  would  be  a  proper  remedy  for  the  disorders. 
Influence  is  not  government.  Let  us  have  a  government 
by  which  our  lives,  liberties,  and  properties  will  be 
secured,  or  let  us  know  the  worst  at  once. — To  Henry 
Lee,  in  Congress,  31  October,  1786. 

Fain  would  I  hope,  that  the  great  and  most  important 
of  all  subjects,  the  federal  government,  may  be  consid- 
ered with  that  calm  and  deliberate  attention,  which  the 
magnitude  of  it  so  critically  and  loudly  calls  for.  Let 
prejudices,  unreasonable  jealousies,  and  local  interests 
yield  to  reason  and  liberality.  .  .  . 

[In]  a  letter  .  .  .  from  General  Knox,  .  .  . 
among  other  things  he  says,  "Their  creeds,  that  the 
property  of  the  United  States  has  been  protected  from 
the  confiscation  of  Britain  by  the  joint  exertions  of  all, 
and  therefore  ought  to  be  the  common  property  of  all,"  . 
They  are  determined  to  annihilate  all  debts,  public  and 
private,  and  have  agrarian  laws,  .  .  . — To  James 
Madison,  5  November,  1786. 

By  a  late  act,  it  seems  very  desirous  of  a  general  con- 
vention to  revise  and  amend  the  federal  constitution. 
Apropos:  what  prevented  the  eastern  States  from  at- 
tending the  September  meeting  at  Annapolis?  Of  all 
the  States  in  the  Union  it  should  seem,  that  a  measure 
of  this  sort,  distracted  as  they  were  with  internal  com- 
motions and  experiencing  the  want  of  energy  in  the 
government,  would  have  been  most  pleasing  to  them. — 
To  Henry  Knox,  26  December,  1786. 

I  am  indirectly  and  delicately  pressed  to  attend  this 


80  AMERICAN    HISTORY    STUDIES. 

convention  [Philadelphia,  1787].  Several  reasons  are 
opposed  to  it  in  my  mind  .  .  .  [Partly  personal.] 
A  thought  has  lately  run  through  my  mind,  however, 
which  is  accompanied  with  embarrassment.  It  is 
whether  my  non-attendance  in  the  convention  will 
not  be  considered  as  a  dereliction  of  republicanism. 
[Some  friends  advised  him  to  attend,  others  the  con- 
trary. It  was  about  three  months  after  appointment 
before  he  decided  to  accept.] — To  Henry  Knox,  8  March, 
1787. 

Every  attempt  to  amend  the  constitution  at  this  time 
is  in  my  opinion  idle  and  vain.  If  there  are  characters, 
who  prefer  disunion,  or  separate  confederacies,  to  the 
general  government,  which  is  offered  to  them,  their 
opposition  may,  for  aught  I  know,  proceed  from  prin- 
ciple; but,  as  nothing,  according  to  my  conception  of 
the  matter,  is  more  to  be  deprecated  than  a  disunion  or 
these  distinct  confederations,  as  far  as  my  voice  can  go 
it  shall  be  offered  in  favor  of  the  latter. — To  David 
Stuart,  SO  November,  1787. 

Should  it  [the  constitution]  be  adopted,  and  I  think 
it  will  be,  America  will  lift  up  her  head  again,  and  in  a 
few  years  become  respectable  among  the  nations.  It  is 
a  flattering  .  .  .  reflection  that  our  rising  republics 
have  the  good  wishes  of  all  the  philosophers,  patriots, 
and  virtuous  men  in  all  nations;  and  that  they  look 
upon  them  as  a  kind  of  asylum  for  mankind.  God 
grant  that  we  may  not  disappoint  their  honest  expecta- 
tions by  our  folly  or  perverseness. — To  the  Marquis  de 
Chastellux,  25  April,  1788. 

The  above  extracts  are  all  taken  from  Spark's 
Writings  of  Washington,  vol.  IX,  pp.  5,  12-13, 
121-24,  140,  156,  166,  178-80,  183,  189,  204-206, 
226,  238,  284,  297. 

Part  of  the  extracts  from  Jefferson's  writings 
are  taken  from  the  edition  of  his  work  of  1830, 
and  part  from  the  new  edition  by  Ford,  pub- 
lished in  1895. 

I  remain  in  hopes  of  great  and  good  effects  from  the 
decisions  of  the  Assembly  [Constitutional  Convention] 
over  which  you  are  presiding.  To  make  our  States  one 
as  to  all  foreign  concerns,  preserve  them  several  as  to 
all  merely  domestic,  to  give  to  the  federal  head  some 


FORMATION    OP   CONSTITUTION.  81 

peaceable  mode  of  enforcing  its  just  authority,  to 
organize  that  head  into  legislative,  executive,  and 
judiciary  departments,  are  great  desiderata  in  our  fed- 
eral constitution. — Jefferson  to  Washington,  Works  of 
Jefferson  (ed.  1830},  vol.  II,  p.  222. 

I  find  by  the  public  papers  that  your  Commercial  Con- 
vention failed  in  point  of  representation.  If  it  should 
produce  a  full  meeting  in  May  and  a  broader  reforma- 
tion, it  will  still  be  well.  To  make  us  one  nation  as  to 
foreign  concerns,  and  keep  us  distinct  in  Domestic  ones, 
gives  the  outline  of  the  proper  division  of  power  be- 
tween the  general  and  particular  governments.  But 
to  enable  the  Federal  head  to  exercise  the  power  given 
it,  to  best  advantage,  it  should  be  organized,  as  the 
particular  ones  are,  into  Legislative,  Executive,  and 
Judiciary.  The  1st  and  last  are  already  separated.  The 
2d  should  also  be.  When  last  with  Congress  I  often 
proposed  to  members  to  do  this  by  making  of  the  Com- 
mittee of  the  states,  an  Executive  committee  during  the 
recess  of  Congress  and  during  its  sessions  to  appoint  a 
Committee  to  receive  and  dispatch  all  executive  busi- 
ness, so  that  Congress  itself  should  meddle  only  with 
what  should  be  legislative. — Jefferson  to  Madison,  Dec. 
16,  1786,  Works,  vol.  IV,  p.  331. 

The  negative  proposed  to  be  given  them  [Congress] 
on  all  the  acts  of  the  several  legislatures  is  now  for  the 
first  time  suggested  to  my  mind.  Prima  facie  I  do  not 
like  it.  It  fails  in  the  essential  character  that  the  hole 
and  the  patch  should  be  commensurate.  But  this  pro- 
poses to  mend  a  small  hole  by  covering  the  whole  gar- 
ment. .  .  .  Would  not  an  appeal  from  the  State 
Judicatures  to  a  federal  court  in  all  cases  where  the 
act  of  Confederation  controlled  the  question,  be  as 
effectual  a  remedy,  and  exactly  commensurate  to  the 
defect?  ...  An  appeal  to  a  federal  court  sets  all 
to  rights. «  It  will  be  said  that  this  court  may  encroach 
on  the  jurisdiction  of  the  state  courts.  It  may.  But 
there  will  be  a  power,  to-wit,  Congress,  to  watch  and 
restrain  them.  But  place  the  same  authority  in  Con- 
gress itself,  and  there  will  be  no  power  above  them  to 
perform  the  same  office.  .  .  . — Jefferson  to  Madison, 
June  20,  1787,  Works,  vol.  IV,  pp.  890-V1. 

Our  new  constitution  is  powerfully  attacked  in  the 
newspapers.  The  objections  are  that  it  would  be  to 
form  the  13  states  into  one:  that  proposing  to  melt  all 


82  AMERICAN    HISTORY    STUDIES. 

down  into  one  general  government  they  have  fenced 
the  people  by  no  declaration  of  rights,  they  have  not 
renounced  the  power  of  keeping  a  standing  army,  they 
have  not  secured  the  liberty  of  the  press,  they  have  re- 
served the  power  of  abolishing  trial  by  jury  in  civil 
cases,    .    .    .    they  have  abandoned  rotation  in  office; 
and  particularly  their  president  may  be  re-elected  from 
4  years  to  4  years  for  life,  so  as  to  render  him  a  king 
for  life  like  a  king  of  Poland,  and  have  not  given  him 
either  the  check  or  aid  of  a  council.    .    .    .    You  will 
see  that  these  objections  are  serious,  and  some  of  them 
not  without  foundation. — To  William  Carmichael,  Paris, 
Dec.  15,  1787,  Jefferson's  Works  (1895  ed.),  vol.  17,  p.  470. 
.    .    .    I  like  much  the  general  idea  of  framing  a 
government  which  should  go  on  of  itself  peacefully, 
without  needing  continual  recurrence  to  the  state  legis- 
latures.   I  like  the  organization  of  the  government  into 
Legislative,  Judiciary  and  Executive.    I  like  the  power 
given  the  Legislature  to  levy  taxes,    ...    I  am  cap- 
tivated by  the  compromise  of  the  opposite  claims  of 
the  great  and  little  states,  of  the  latter  to  equal  and  the 
former  to  proportional  influence.    I  am  much  pleased 
too  with  the  substitution  of  the  method  of  voting  by 
persons,  instead  of  voting  by  states;    and  I  like  the 
negative   given   to   the  Executive    .    .    .    There    are 
other  good  things  of  less  moment.    I  will  now  add 
what  I  do  not  like.    First  the  omission  of  a  bill  of 
rights  providing  clearly  and  without  the  aid  of  soph- 
isms for  freedom  of  religion,  freedom  of  the  press,  pro- 
tection  against   standing   armies,   restriction   against 
monopolies,  the  eternal  and  unremitting  force  of  the 
habeas  corpus  laws,  and  trials  by  jury  in  all  matters  of 
fact  triable  by  the  laws  of  the  land  and  not  by  the  law 
of  nations.    .    .    .    Let  me  add  that  a  bill  of  rights  is 
what  the  people  are  entitled  to  against  every  govern- 
ment on  earth,  general  or  particular,  and  just  what  no 
just  government  should  refuse,  or  rest- on  inferences. 
The  second  feature  I  dislike,    ...    Is  the  abandon- 
ment in  every  instance  of  the  necessity  of  rotation  in 
office,  and  most  particularly  in  the  case  of  the  Presi- 
dent.    [Here  a  prediction  follows  which  has  not  been 
fulfilled.]    ...    I   do   not   pretend  to   decide   what 
would  be  the  best  method  of  procuring  the  establish- 
ment of  the  manifold  good  things  in  this  constitution, 
and  of  getting  rid  of  the  bad.    .    .    ,     I  own  I  am  not 


FORMATION    OF    CONSTITUTION.  83 

a  friend  to  a.  very  energetic  government.  It  Is  always 
oppressive.  The  late  rebellion  in  Massachusetts  has 
given  more  alarm  than  I  think  it  should  have  done. 
.  .  .  After  all,  it  is  my  principle  that  the  will  of  the 
majority  should  always  prevail.  If  they  approve  the 
proposed  convention  in  all  its  parts,  I  shall  concur  in 
it  cheerfully,  in  hopes  that  they  will  amend  it  when- 
ever they  shall  find  it  work  wrong.  I  think  our  gov- 
ernments will  remain  virtuous  for  many  centuries;  as 
long  as  they  are  chiefly  agricultural;  and  this  will  be 
as  long  as  there  shall  be  vacant  lands  in  any  part  of 
America.  When  they  get  piled  upon  one  another  in 
large  cities,  as  in  Europe,  they  will  become  corrupt  as 
in  Europe.  .  .  . — To  James  Madison,  Paris,  Dec.  20, 
1787,  Ib.,  474-76. 

PUBLIC  ACTION. 

The  powers  of  the  delegates  to  the  first  Conti- 
nental Congress  of  1774  will  indicate  the  pur- 
pose for  which  these  delegates  came  together. 
The  instructions  to  the  Virginia  and  Maryland 
delegates  illustrate  the  spirit  of  all. 

VIRGINIA:  To  consider  of  the  most  proper  and  effect- 
ual manner  of  so  operating  on  the  Commercial  conven- 
tion of  the  Colonies  with  the  Mother  country,  as  to 
procure  redress  for  the  much-injured  Province  of 
Massachusetts  Bay,  to  secure  British  America  from  the 
ravage  and  ruin  of  arbitrary  taxes,  and  speedily  to 
procure  the  return  of  that  harmony  and  union  so  ben- 
eficial to  the  whole  Empire,  and  so  ardently  desired  by 
all  British  America. 

MARYLAND:  To  attend  a  General  Congress  to  assist 
one  general  plan  of  conduct  operating  on  the  Commer- 
cial connection  of  the  Colonies  with  the  mother  coun- 
try, for  the  relief  of  Boston  and  the  preservation  of 
American  Liberty. 

The  Congress  of  1774  passed  the  following 
resolutions  in  regard  to  the  vote  of  the  various 

delegations  present: 

* 

Resolved,  That,  in  determining  questions  in  this  Con- 
gress, each  colony  or  province  shall  have  one  vote;  the 
Congress  not  being  possessed  of,  or  at  present  able  to 


84  AMERICAN    HISTORY    STUDIES. 

procure,  proper  materials  for  ascertaining  the  impor- 
tance of  each  colony. — Journal  of  Congress,  vol.  I,  p.  7. 

On  October  20,  1774,  this  Congress  passed  the 
Non-importation  agreement.  It  has  sometimes 
been  called  the  beginning  of  the  government  of 
the  United  States. 

[Name  grievances,  then  say]  To  obtain  redress  of 
these  grievances,  .  .  .  we  are  of  opinion,  that  a 
non-importation,  non-consumption,  and  non-exporta- 
tion agreement,  faithfully  adhered  to,  will  prove  the 
most  speedy,  effectual,  and  peaceable  measure:  [terms 
follow]  .  .  . 

Sec.  11.  That  a  committee  be  chosen  in  every  county, 
city  and  town  by  those  who  are  qualified  to  vote  for 
representatives  in  the  legislature  whose  business  it 
shall  be  attentively  to  observe  the  conduct  of  all  per- 
sons touching  this  association;  and  when  it  shall  be 
made  to  appear  .  .  .  that  any  person  .  .  .  has 
violated  this  association  that  [his  name  be]  published 
in  the  gazette;  to  the  end  that  all  such  foes  to  the 
rights  of  British-America  may  be  publicly  known,  and 
universally  contemned  as  the  enemies  of  American  lib- 
erty; and  thenceforth  we  respectively  will  break  off  all 
dealings  with  him  or  her. 

Sec.  12.  That  the  committee  of  correspondence,  in  the 
respective  colonies,  do  frequently  inspect  the  entries,  of . 
their  custom-houses,   and   inform   each    other,    .    .    . 
of  the  true  state  thereof,    .    .    . 

Sec.  14.  And  we  do  further  agree  and  resolve,  that 
we  will  have  no  trade  ...  or  dealings  .  .  . 
with  any  colony  or  province  in  North  America,  which 
shall  not  accede  to  or  which  hereafter  shall  violate  this 
association,  but  will  hold  them  as  unworthy  of  the 
rights  of  freemen,  and  as  inimical  to  the  liberties  of 
their  country. 

And  we  do  solemnly  bind  ourselves  and  our  constitu- 
ents, ...  to  adhere  to  this  association,  until  [re- 
dress of  grievances  obtained]. — Journal  of  Congress,  vol. 
I,  pp.  23-25. 

The  Congress  of  1775  met  for  the  same  pur- 
pose, but  soon  had  to  begin  to  act  as  a  revolu- 
tionary '  body,  and  carried  on  the  government 


FORMATION   OF   CONSTITUTION.  85 

the  war  till  1781,  when  the  articles  of  con- 
federation were  adopted. 

;'!; 

ARTICLES  OF  CONFEDERATION 

e 

Articles  ef  Confederation  and  Perpetual  Union  be- 
tween the  states  of  New  Hampshire,  Massachusetts 
Bay  .  .  . 

Article  I.  The  style  of  this  Confederacy  shall  be 
"The  United  States  of  America." 

Article  II.  Each  State  retains  its  sovereignty,  free- 
dom and  independence,  and  every  Power,  Jurisdiction 
and  right  which  is  not  .  .  expressly  delegated.  .  . 

Article  III.  The  said  States  hereby  severally  enter 
into  a  firm  league  of  friendship  with  each  other,  .  . 
binding  themselves  to  assist  each  other  against  all 
force  offered  to,  or  made  upon  them,  .  .  . 

Even  before  the  Articles  of  Confederation 
were  ratified  by  the  last  state,  Maryland,  a  pro- 
posal had  been  made  in  Congress,  on  February 
3,  1781,  to  submit  the  following  amendment  to 
the  states  for  their  action.  It  failed  of  adop- 
tion: 

Resolved,  That  it  be  recommended  to  the  several 
States,  .  .  .  that  they  vest  a  power  in  Congress  to 
levy,  for  the  use  of  the  United  States,  a  duty  of  five  per 
cent  ad  valorum,  ...  at  the  time  and  place  of  im- 
portation, upon  all  goods,  ...  of  foreign  growth 
or  manufacture,  .  .  . 

That  the  moneys  arising  from  said  duties  be  appro- 
priated to  the  discharge  of  the  principal  and  interest 
of  the  debts  already  contracted  .  .  . — Elliot's  De- 
bates, vol.  I,  p.  92. 

On  April  18,  1783,  a  second  attempt  to  secure 
an  amendment  was  made,  which  also  failed  of 
final  adoption. 

Resolved,  by  nine  States,  that  it  be  recommended  to 
the  several  States  as  indispensably  necessary  to  the 
restoration  of  public  credit,  ...  to  invest  the 
United  States  in  Congress  assembled,  with  the  power 
to  levy,  for  the  use  of  the  United  States,  the  following 
duties  upon  goods  imported  into  the  said  States  from 


86  AMERICAN    HISTORY    STUDIES. 

any    foreign    port,    &c.    .    .    .    [List    pf    articles.]— 
Elliot's  Debates,  vol.  I,  p.  9S. 

On  the  30th  of  April,  1784,  Congress  recom- 
mended for  a  third  time  an  amendment  to  the 
articles,  which  was  finally  defeated  by  the  ac- 
tion of  New  York,  in  the  winter  of  1786-87.  The 
reasons  for  the  proposed  amendment  read  in 
part  as  follows,  and  are  very  important  as  show- 
ing one  of  the  direct  causes  that  led  to  the 
calling  of  the  Constitutional  Convention: 

The  trust  reposed  in  Congress  renders  it  their  duty 
to  be  attentive  to  the  conduct  of  foreign  nations,  and 
to  prevent  or  restrain,  ...  all  such  proceedings 
as  might  prove  injurious  to  the  United  States.  The 
situation  of  Commerce  at  this  time  claims  the  atten- 
tion of  the  several  states,  and  few  objects  of  greater 
importance  can  present  themselves  to  their  notice  .  . 
[reasons  given]. 

Already  has  Great-Britain  adopted  regulations  de- 
structive of  our  commerce  with  her  West-India  island. 
There  was  reason  to  expect  that  measures  so  unequal 
and  so  little  calculated  to  promote  mercantile  inter- 
course, would  not  be  persevered  in  by  an  enlightened 
nation.  ...  It  would  be  the  duty  of  Congress,  as 
it  is  their  wish,  to  meet  the  attempts  of  Great-Britain 
with  similar  restrictions  on  her  commerce;  but  their 
powers  on  this  head  are  not  explicit,  and  the  proposi- 
tions made  by  the  legislatures  of  the  several  states 
render  it  necessary  to  take  the  general  sense  of  the 
nation  on  this  subject. 

Unless  the  United  States  in  Congress  assembled,  shall 
be  vested  with  powers  competent  to  the  protection  of 
commerce,  they  can  never  command  reciprocal  advan- 
tages in  trade;  and  without  these,  our  foreign  com- 
merce must  decline,  and  eventually  be  annihilated. 
Hence  it  is  necessary  that  .  .  .  foreign  commerce, 
not  founded  on  principles  of  equality,  may  be  re- 
strained, ...  to  secure  such  terms  they  have 

Resolved,  That  it  be  ...  recommended  to  the 
legislatures  of  the  several  states,  to  vest  the  United 
States,  in  Congress  assembled,  for  the  term  of  fifteen 
years,  with  power  to  prohibit  any  goods  .  .  .  from 
being  imported  into  or  exported  from  any  of  the 


FORMATION   OF    CONSTITUTION.  87 

states,  In  vessels  belonging  to  ...  the  subjects  of 
any  foreign  power  with  whom  these  states  shall  not 
have  formed  treaties  of  commerce. 

Resolved,  That  it  be  ...  recommended,  .  .  . 
to  vest  the  United  States,  in  Congress  assembled,  for 
the  term  of  15  years,  with  the  power  of  prohibiting  the 
subjects  of  any  foreign  state  .  .  .  unless  author- 
ized by  treaty,  from  importing  into  the  United  States 
any  goods  .  .  .  which  are  not  the  product  .  .  . 
of  the  dominions  of  the  sovereign  whose  subjects  they 
are. 

After  the  failure  of  these  various  attempts  to 
amend  the  Articles  of  Confederation,  the  friends 
of  greater  power  in  the  Union  turned  to  the  call- 
ing of  a  convention  for  taking  the  question  into 
consideration.  Virginia  was  the  first  state  to 
act,  and  on  January  21,  1786,  its  legislature 
passed  the  following  resolution: 

Resolved,  that  Edmund  Randolph,  James  Madison, 
...  be  appointed  commissioners,  who  or  any  five  of 
whom,  shall  meet  such  commissioners  as  maybe  ap- 
pointed by  other  States  in  the  Union,  ...  to  take 
into  consideration  the  trade  of  the  United  States;  to 
examine  the  relative  situation  of  the  trade  of  the  said 
States,  .  .  .  and  to  report  to  the  several  States  such 
an  act  relative  to  this  great  object  as  when  unani- 
mously ratified  by  them,  will  enable  the  United  States 
in  Congress  assembled,  to  provide  for  the  same  .  .  . 
[Notice  of  action  sent  to  other  states.] — Elliot's  De- 
bates, vol.  I,  p.  115. 

Commissioners  from  four  other  states,  New 
York,  New  Jersey,  Pennsylvania,  and  Delaware, 
met  with  those  from  Virginia,  and  sent  out  a 
letter  to  the  other  states  and  to  Congress  asking 
that  a  convention  be  held  on  the  second  Monday 
of  the  following  May.  The  interesting  para- 
graphs in  their  resolutions  for  us  read  as  fol- 
lows: 

To  the  Honorable  the  Legislatures  of  Virginia,  etc., 
.    .    .    the  Commissioners  from  the  said  States,     . 
humbly  beg  leave  to  report:     ,    .    .    That  the  State  of 


88  AMERICAN   HISTORY    STUDIES. 

New  Jersey  had  enlarged  the  object  of  their  appoint- 
ment, empowering  their  commissioners,  "to  consider 
how  far  an  uniform  system  in  their  commercial  regula- 
tions, and  other  important  matters,  might  be  necessary 
to  the  common  interest  and  permanent  harmony  of  the 
several  States":  .  .  .  [Your  commissioners  believe 
this]  was  an  improvement  on  the  original  plan,  and 
will  deserve  to  be  incorporated  into  that  of  a  future 
Convention,  .  .  . 

Under  this  impression,  your  Commissioners,  .  .  . 
beg  leave  to  suggest  their  unanimous  conviction  that 
[Commissioners  should  meet]  at  Philadelphia  on  the 
second  Monday  in  May  next,  to  take  into  consideration 
the  situation  of  the  United  States;  to  devise  such 
further  provisions  as  shall  appear  to  them  necessary  to 
render  the  constitution  of  the  Federal  Government  ade- 
quate to  the  exigencies  of  the  Union;  and  to  report 
such  an  act  for  that  purpose,  to  the  United  States  in 
Congress  assembled,  as,  when  agreed  to  by  them,  and 
afterwards  confirmed  by  the  Legislatures  of  every  State, 
will  effectually  provide  for  the  same. — Madison's  Jour- 
nal of  the  Constitutional  Convention,  pp.  88-40.  (Albert, 
Scott  &  Co.  edition.) 

Congress  took  this  resolution  of  the  Annapo- 
lis convention  into  consideration,  and  finally 
passed,  on  February  21,  1787,  the  following: 

Resolved,  That  in  the  opinion  of  Congress,  it  is  ex- 
pedient that,  on  the  second  Monday  in  May  next,  a 
Convention  of  Delegates,  who  shall  have  been  appointed 
by  the  several  States,  be  held  at  Philadelphia  for  the 
sole  and  express  purpose  of  revising  the  Article  of 
Confederation,  and  reporting  to  Congress  and  the  sev- 
eral legislatures,  such  alterations  and  provisions  therein 
as  shall,  when  agreed  to  in  Congress,  and  confirmed  by 
the  States,  render  the  federal  Constitution  adequate  to 
the  exigencies  of  Government,  and  the  preservation  of 
the  Union. — Journal  of  Congress,  vol.  IV,  p.  — . 

The  legislatures  of  all  the  states,  except 
Rhode  Island,  acted  in  conformity  to  this  resolu- 
tion, and  sent  delegates  to  Philadelphia.  They 
met  and  organized  on  May  25,  and  adjourned 
on  September  17,  1787.  The  present  constitu- 


FORMATION   OF   CONSTITUTION.  89 

tion  is  the  result  of  their  labors.  The  powers 
granted  by  the  various  state  legislatures  to  their 
delegates  may  be  seen  from  the  following  ex- 
tracts : 

GEORGIA.  Be  it  ordained,  by  the  Representatives  of 
the  State  of  Georgia,  .  .  .  that  William  Few,  Abra- 
ham Baldwin  ...  be,  ...  appointed  Commis- 
sioners, who  .  .  .  are  authorized  ...  to  meet 
such  deputies  as  may  be  appointed  and  authorized,  by 
other  States  .  .  .  and  to  join  with  them  in  devis- 
ing and  discussing  all  such  alterations  and  further  pro- 
visions as  may  be  necessary  to  render  the  Federal  Con- 
stitution adequate  to  the  exigencies  of  the  Union,  and 
in  reporting  such  an  act  for  that  purpose  to  the  United 
States  in  Congress  assembled,  as,  when  agreed  to  by 
them,  and  duly  confirmed  by  the  several  States,  will 
effectually  provide  for  the  same.  .  .  . — Elliot,  De- 
bates, vol.  I,  pp.  126-138. 

MASSACHUSETTS.  Whereas,  Congress  did,  on  the  21st 
day  of  February,  1787,  Resolve,  That,  ...  a  Con- 
vention of  Delegates,  ...  be  held  at  Philadelphia, 
for  the  sole  and  express  purpose  of  revising  the  Articles 
of  Confederation  .  .  .  [rest  of  resolution  quoted]. 
Now,  therefore,  etc.  [Francis  Dana,  Elbridge  Gerry, 
Nathaniel  Gorham,  Rufus  King,  and  Caleb  Strong  com- 
missioned as  delegates.] 

CONNECTICUT.  Whereas,  The  Congress  of  the  United 
States,  .  .  .  have  recommended  that,  ...  a 
convention  ...  be  held  at  Philadelphia,  for  the 
sole  and  express  purpose  of  revising  the  Articles  of  Con- 
federation; [names  of  delegates  follow]. 

NEW  YORK.  Resolved,  that  Hon.  Robert  Yates,  John 
Lansing,  Jr.,  and  Alexander  Hamilton,  Esqs.  be  ... 
appointed  delegates  ...  to  meet  such  delegates 
...  at  Philadelphia,  for  the  sole  and  express  pur- 
pose of  revising  the  Articles  of  Confederation  .  .  . 
[etc.  as  in  Georgia]. 

NEW  JERSEY.  The  Council  and  Assembly  .  .  . 
have  appointed  you  [names  follow  here]  to  meet  such 
Commissioners  ...  as  may  be  appointed  by  the 
other  States  in  the  Union,  .  .  .  for  the  purpose  of 
taking  into  consideration,  the  state  of  the  Union,  as  to 
trade  and  other  important  objects,  and  of  devising  such 
other  provisions  as  shall  appear  to  be  necessary  to 


90  AMERICAN    HISTORY    STUDIES. 

render  the  Constitution  of  the  Federal  Government 
adequate  to  the  exigencies  thereof. 

PENNSYLVANIA.  Be  it  enacted  .  .  .  that  [names 
members]  are  hereby  constituted  and  appointed  Depu- 
ties from  this  State  ...  to  meet  such  Deputies  as 
may  be  appointed  ...  by  other  States  .  .  .  and 
Join  with  them  in  devising,  deliberating  on,  and  dis- 
cussing, all  such  alterations  and  furtJier  provisions  as 
may  be  necessary  to  render  the  Federal  Constitution 
fully  adequate  to  the  exigencies  of  the  Union,  .  .  . 

DELAWARE.    [Almost  the  same  as  Pennsylvania.] 

MARYLAND.  [Almost  same  wording  as  Pennsylva- 
nia.] 

VIRGINIA.    [Same  wording  as  Pennsylvania.] 

NORTH  CAROLINA.  For  the  purpose  of  revising  the 
Federal  Constitution. 

SOUTH  CAROLINA.  By  virtue  of  the  power  and  au- 
thority invested  by  the  Legislature  of  this  State,  I  do 
hereby  commission  you  [names]  to  meet  such  Deputies 
.  .  .  and  to  join  with  [them]  in  devising  and  dis- 
cussing all  such  alterations,  clauses,  articles  and  pro- 
visions, as  may  be  thought  necessary  to  render  the 
Federal  Constitution  entirely  adequate  to  the  actual 
situation  and  future  good  government  of  the  Confed- 
erated States;  .  .  .  [which]  when  approved  and 
agreed  to  by  them  [the  United  States]  and  duly  ratified 
and  confirmed  by  the  several  States,  will  effectually 
provide  for  the  exigencies  of  the  Union. 

NEW  HAMPSHIRE.  ...  To  remedy  the  defects  of 
our  Federal  Union.  .  .  . 

THE   CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

Madison's  Journal  of  the  Constitutional  Con- 
vention ought  to  be  in  the  hands  of  every 
teacher  who  gives  instruction  in  the  history  and 
civil  government  of  the  United  States.  No  li- 
brary can  be  considered  complete  without  it. 
A  few  extracts  are  made  which  will  illustrate 
some  of  the  great  issues  discussed  in  the  con- 
vention, and  the  position  taken  on  them  by  the 
members  of  the  convention.  However,  it  is  not 
possible  to  give  an  adequate  idea  of  the  value 
of  this  work  from  any  short  extracts. 


FORMATION    OF    CONSTITUTION.  91 

After  three  days  spent  in  organizing,  adopt- 
ing rules,  and  determining  on  plans,  the  debate 
began.  GOVERNOR  KANDOLPH,  of  Virginia,  pre- 
sented the  first  plan  and  opened  his  speech  as 
follows,  as  given  by  Madison : 

.  .  .  He  observed,  that,  in  revising  the  Ifederal  sys- 
tem we  ought  to  inquire,  first,  into  the  properties  which 
such  a  government  ought  to  possess;  secondly,  the  de- 
fects of  the  Confederation;  thirdly,  the  danger  of  our 
situation;  and  fourthly,  the  remedy. 

(1.)  The  character  of  such  a  government  ought  to  be 
secure,  first  against  foreign  invasion;  secondly  against 
dissensions  between  members  of  the  Union,  or  sedi- 
tions in  particular  States;  thirdly  to  procure  to  the 
several  States  various  blessings  of  which  an  isolated 
situation  was  incapable;  fourthly,  it  should  be  able  to 
defend  itself  against  encroachments;  and  fifthly,  to  be 
paramount  to  the  State  Constitutions. — Journal  of  the 
Constitutional  Convention,  p.  59. 

Then,  after  discussing  the  defects  and  dan- 
gers, he  proposed  fifteen  resolutions  as  the  basis 
of  a  remedy.  Among  these  resolutions  the  fol- 
lowing may  be  cited: 

1.  Resolved,  that  the  Articles  of  Confederation  ought 
to  be  so  corrected  and  enlarged  as  to  accomplish  the 
objects  proposed  by  their  institution;  namely,  "com- 
mon defense,  security  of  liberty,  and  general  welfare." 

3.  Resolved,  that  the  National  Legislature  ought  to 
consist  of  two  branches. 

7.  Resolved,  that  a  National  Executive  be  instituted; 

9.  Resolved,  that  a  National  Judiciary  be  established; 
.  .  .— Jb.,  pp.  59-62. 

On  May  30  MR.  RANDOLPH  made  a  motion 
which  led  to  action  that  has  been  much  dis- 
cussed, and  concerning  which  very  different 
opinions  have  been  expressed.  He  moved  that 
his  first  proposition,  above  cited,  should  be  post- 
poned in  order  tc  consider  the  three  following: 

(1.)  That  a  union  of  the  States  merely  federal  will 


92  AMERICAN    HISTORY    STUDIES. 

not  accomplish  the  objects  proposed  by  the  Articles  of 
Confederation,  namely  .  .  . 

(2.)  That  no  treaty  or  treaties  among  the  whole  or 
part  of  the  States,  as  individual  sovereignties,  would  be 
sufficient. 

(3.)  That  a  national  government  ought  to  be  estab- 
lished, consisting  of  a  supreme  Legislative,  Executive 
and  Judiciary. 

Consideration  of  the  first  and  second  of  the 
above  resolutions  was  deferred;  the  third,  after 
some  debate,  was  adopted.  In  the  course  of  the 
debate  Gen.  Pinckney  said: 

he  doubted  whether  the  act  of  Congress  recommending 
the  convention,  or  the  commissions  of  the  Deputies  to 
it,  would  authorize  a  discussion  of  a  system  founded  on 
different  principles  from  the  Federal  Constitution. 

MR.  GOUVERNEUR  MORRIS  explained  the  distinction 
between  a  federal  and  a  national,  supreme  government, 
the  former  being  a  mere  compact  resting  on  the  good 
faith  of  the  parties;  the  latter  having  a  complete  and 
compulsive  operation. 

After  the  adoption  of  this  resolution,  in  the 
discussion  of  another  question,  MR.  MADISON 

observed,  that,  whatever  reason  might  have  existed  for 
the  equality  of  suffrage  when  the  Union  was  a  federal 
onfc  among  sovereign  States,  it  must  cease  when  a 
national  government  should  be  put  into  the  place. 

May  31,  a  debate  took  place  over  Mr.  Ran- 
dolph's fourth  resolution,  "that  the  members  of 
the  first  branch  of  the  National  Legislature  ought 
to  be  elected  by  the  people  of  the  several  states" 
which  throws  much  light  on  the  spirit  of  the 
time,  and  of  the  convention. 

MR.  SHERMAN  opposed  the  election  by  the  people,  in- 
sisting that  it  ought  to  be  by  the  State  Legislatures. 
The  people,  he  said,  immediately  should  have  as  little 
to  do  as  may  be  about  the  government.  They  want  in- 
formation, and  are  constantly  liable  to  be  misled. 

MR.  GERRT.  The  evils  we  experience  flow  from  the 
excess  of  democracy.  The  ^people  do  not  want  virtue, 


FORMATION    OF    CONSTITUTION.  93 

but  are  the  dupes  of  pretended  patriots.  .  .  .  He 
had,  he  said,  been  too  republican  heretofore;  he  was 
still,  however,  republican;  but  had  been  taught  by  ex- 
perience the  danger  of  the  leveling  spirit. 

MB.  MASON.  ...  He  admitted  that  we  had  been 
too  democratic,  but  was  afraid  we  should  Incautiously 
run  into  the  opposite  extreme.  .  .  . 

MB.  WILSON  contended  strenuously  for  drawing  the 
most  numerous  branch  of  the  Legislature  immediately 
from  the  people.  He  was  for  raising  the  federal  pyra- 
mid to  a  considerable  altitude,  and  for  that  reason 
wished  to  give  it  as  broad  a  basis  as  possible.  No  gov- 
ernment could  long  subsist  without  the  confidence  of 
the  people.  .  .  . 

ME.  MADISON  considered  the  popular  election  of  one 
branch  of  the  National  Legislature  as  essential  to  every 
plan  of  free  government.  .  .  . 

MB.  RANDOLPH.  ...  He  observed  that  the  gen- 
eral object  was  to  provide  a  cure  for  the  evils  under 
which  the  United  States  labored;  that  in  tracing  these 
evils  to  their  origin,  ever  man  had  found  it  in  the 
turbulence  and  follies  of  democracy;  that  some  check 
therefore  was  to  be  sought  for  against  this  tendency  of 
our  governments;  and  that  a  good  senate  seemed  more 
likely  to  answer  the  purpose. — /&.,  pp.  73-81. 

COL.  MASON.  Under  the  existing  Confederacy,  Con- 
gress represents  the  States,  and  not  the  people  of  the 
States;  their  acts  operate  on  the  States,  not  on  the  indi- 
viduals. The  case  will  be  changed  in  the  new  plan  of 
government.  The  people  will  be  represented;  they 
ought  therefore  to  choose  the  Representative*  .  .  . 
—II).,  p.  116. 

MR.  WILSON.  ...  He  did  not  see  the  danger  of  the 
States  being  devoured  by  the  national  government.  On 
the  contrary,  he  wished  to  keep  them  from  devouring 
the  National  Government.  .  .  . — Ib.,  p.  128. 

One  of  the  most  difficult  questions  before  the 
convention  was  how  to  settle  the  varying  inter- 
ests of  the  large  and  the  small  states  At  one 
time  it  seems  as  if  the  convention  would  break 
up  over  the  question.  A  few  expressions  taken 
here  and  there  from  the  debate  may  help  us  to 
understand  the  bitterness  of  feeling. 


94  AMERICAN    HISTORY    STUDIES. 

MR.  PATTEBSON.  .  .  .  The  convention,  he  said, 
was  formed  in  pursuanca  of  an  act  of  Congress;  .  .  . 
that  the  amendment  of  the  Confederacy  was  the  object 
of  all  the  laws  and  commissions  on  the  subject.  ,  .  . 
The  Idea  of  a  National  Government,  as  contradistin- 
guished from  a  federal  one,  never  entered  into  the 
mind  of  any  of  them.  He  was  strongly  attached  to  the 
plan  of  the  existing  Confederacy,  in  which  the  people 
choose  their  legislative  representatives;  and  the  Legis- 
latures their  federal  representatives.  .  .  .  He  al- 
luded to  the  hint  thrown  out  by  MR.  WILSON,  of  the 
necessity  to  which  the  large  States  might  be  reduced, 
of  confederating  among  themselves.  .  .  .  New  Jer- 
sey will  never  confederate  on  the  plan  before  the 
Committee.  She  would  not  be  swallowed  up.  He  had 
rather  submit  to  a  monarch,  to  a  despot,  than  to  such 
a  fate.  .  .  . 

MR.  WILSON  hoped,  if  the  Confederacy  should  be 
dissolved,  that  a  majority, — nay,  a  minority  of  the 
States  would  unite  for  their  safety. — Ib.,  pp.  189-41. 

At  this  point  Mr.  Patterson  introduced  the  so- 
called  New  Jersey  plan,  which  provided  only 
for  amending  the  Articles  of  Confederation. 
The  debate  was  renewed  with  the  following  re- 
sult: 

•  MB.  WILSON.  .  .  .  With  regard  to  the  power  of 
the  convention,  he  conceived  himself  authorized  to  con- 
clude nothinff,  but  to  be  at  liberty  to  propose  anything. 
.  .  .  With  regard  to  the  sentiments  of  the  people,  he 
conceived  it  difficult  to  know  precisely  what  they  are. 
.  .  .  Why  should  a  National  Government  be  unpopu- 
lar? .  .  .  Will  a  citizen  of  Delaicare  be  degraded  by 
becoming  a  citizen  of  the  United  States?  .  .  . 

MR.  PINCKXEY.  The  whole  thing  comes  to  this  .  . 
Give  New  Jersey  an  equal  vote,  and  she  will  dismiss  her 
scruples,  and  concur  in  the  National  system. — Ib.,  pp. 
171-174. 

On  June  19,  by  a  vote  of  seven  states  to  three, 
it  was  carried  to  take  up  Mr.  ^Randolph's  plan 
instead  of  Mr.  Patterson's. 

MR.  WILSON.    Can  we  forget  for  whom  we  are  form- 


FORMATION    OF   CONSTITUTION.  95 

Ing  a  government?  Is  it  for  men,  or  for  the  imaginary 
beings  called  States?  .  .  .— 76.,  p.  272. 

DR.  FRANKLIN.  The  diversity  of  opinions  turns  on 
two  points.  If  a  proportional  representation  takes 
place,  the  small  States  contend  that  their  liberties  will 
be  in  danger.  If  an  equality  of  votes  is  to  be  put  in  its 
place,  the  large  States  say  their  money  will  be  in  dan- 
ger. .  .  . 

MR.  DAYTON.  .  .  .  He  considered  the  system  on 
the  table  as  a  novelty,  an  amphibious  monster;  and 
was  persuaded  that  it  never  would  be  received  by  the 
people. 

MR.  MARTIN  would  never  confederate,  if  it  could  not 
be  done  on  just  principles. 

MR.  BEDFORD  contended,  that  there  was  no  middle 
way  between  a  perfect  consolidation,  and  a  mere  con- 
federacy of  the  States.  The  first  is  out  of  the  question; 
and  in  the  latter  they  must  continue,  if  not  perfectly, 
yet  equally  sovereign.  .  .  .  The  large  States  dare 
not  dissolve  the  confederation.  If  they  do  the  small 
States  will  find  a  foreign  ally,  of  more  honor  and  good 
faith,  who  will  take  them  by  the  hand,  and  do  them 
justice.  .  .  . 

MR.  GERRY.  .  .  .  If  no  compromise  should  take 
place,  what  will  be  the  consequence.  A  secession  he 
foresaw  would  take  place,  for  some  gentlemen  seemed 
decided  on  it.  .  .  .— /&.,  p.  297. 

MR.  GOUVERNEUR  MORRIS  regretted  the  turn  of  thet 
debate.  The  States,  he  found,  had  many  representa- 
tives on  the  floor.  Few,  he  feared,  were  to  be  deemed 
the  Representatives  of  America.  He  thought  the  South- 
ern States  have,  by  this  Report,  more  than  their  share 
of  representation.  .  .  . — /&.,  p.  317. 

On  Monday,  July  16,  the  turning  point  in  the 
convention  came.  After  a  very  deep  and  ear- 
nest, if  not  bitter,  discussion,  a  compromise  was 
seen  to  be  practicable,  by  which  the  Senate  and 
the  House,  as  we  now  have  them,  came  into 
being.  It  was  some  days  later,  however,  before 
the  formal  terms  were  agreed  upon. 

MR.  RANDOLPH.  .  .  .  He  could  not  but  think  that 
we  were  unprepared  to  discuss  this  subject  further.  It 
will  probably  be  in  vain  to  come  to  any  final  decision 


96  AMERICAN    HISTORY    STUDIES. 

with  a  bare  majority  on  either  side.  For  these  reasons 
he  wished  the  Convention  to  adjourn,  that  the  large 
States  might  consider  the  steps  proper  to  be  taken,  In 
the  present  solemn  crisis  of  the  business;  and  that  the 
small  States  might  also  deliberate  on  the  means  of 
conciliation. 

MR.  PATTERSON  thought  that  it  was  high  time  for  the 
Convention  to  adjourn;  that  the  rule  of  secrecy  ought 
to  be  rescinded;  and  that  our  constituents  should  be 
consulted.  No  conciliation  could  be  admissible  on  the 
part  of  the  smaller  States,  on  any  other  ground  than 
than  of  an  equality  of  votes  in  the  second  branch  [the 
Senate].  If  Mr.  Randolph  would  reduce  to  form  his 
motion  for  an  adjournment  sine  die,  he  would  second  it 
with  all  his  heart. 

MR.  RUTLIDGE  could  see  no  need  of  an  adjournment 
because  he  could  see  no  chance  of  a  compromise.  The 
little  States  were  fixed,  .  .  .  All  that  the  large 
States,  then,  had  to  do  was,  to  decide  whether  they 
would  yield  or  not.— 76.,  pp.  358-59. 

There  is  not  space  for  the  proceedings  in 
many  of  the  ratifying  conventions.  But  as  the 
form  of  words  was  not  greatly  different,  a  few 
cases  will  illustrate  the  spirit,  and  in  the  main, 
the  form  in  all. 

DELAWARE.  We,  the  Deputies  of  the  People  of  the 
Delaware  State,  in  Convention  met,  having  taken  into 
our  serious  consideration  the  Federal  Constitution,  pro- 
posed and  agreed  upon  by  the  Deputies  of  the  United 
States,  in  a  General  Convention,  held  at  the  City  of 
Philadelphia,  .  .  .  have  approved,  assented  to,  rati- 
fied, and  confirmed,  and  by  these  presents  do,  ... 
for  and  in  behalf  of  ourselves  and  our  constituents, 
fully,  freely,  and  entirely  approve  of,  assent  to,  ratify, 
and  confirm,  the  said  Constitution. — Elliot's  Debates, 
vol.  7,  p.  319. 

PENNSYLVANIA.  In  the  name  of  the  people  of  Penn- 
sylvania. Be  it  known  unto  all  men  that  we  ... 
have  assented  to  and  ratified  and  by  these  presents  do 
...  in  the  name  and  by  the  authority  of  the  same 
people,  and  for  ourselves,  assent  to  and  ratify  the  fore- 
going Constitution  for  the  United  States  of  America. 
.  .  ..—Elliot's  Debates,  vol.  7,  p.  319. 


FORMATION    OF   CONSTITUTION.  97 


QUESTIONS. 

1.  Who  was  Thomas  Paine?  2.  What  important 
part  did  he  play  in  the  American  revolution?  3.  What 
the  style  of  his  writings?  4.  Has  he  had  justice  done 
him  by  American  historians?  5.  What  view  does  he 
take  of  the  western  lands?  6.  When  was  "Common 
Sense"  written?  7.  What  relation  did  he  believe  the 
States  ought  to  sustain  to  each  other?  8.  What  did 
he  desire  a  continental  convention  for?  9.  Did  time 
prove  him  right?  10.  Was  Washington  hopeful  of  the 
future  in  1783?  11.  Did  he  feel  any  changes  were 
necessary?  12.  Compile  from  all  his  letters  the  rea- 
sons he  considers  the  Articles  of  Confederation  defect- 
ive. 13.  Was  Washington  a  hopeful  man  or  not? 

14.  Did   he  love  his   State   or  the  Union  the  more? 

15.  Did  Washington  believe  that  morally  the  people 
were  improving  or  not?    16.    What  do  you  think  of 
the  four  things  Washington  believed  to  be  essential 
for  our  prosperity?    17.    Why  does  he  talk  so  much  of 
local  prejudices?    18.    What  is  the  important  point  in 
Washington's  philosophy  of  government?    19.    Where 
iwas  sovereignty  located  in  Washington's  view  under 
the  Confederacy?    20.    In  what  way  was  Great  Britain 
getting  the  better  of  us?    21.    Does  Washington  get 
more  or  less  hopeful  as  the  years  pass?    22.    Had  the 
treaty  with  England  been  kept?    23.    Name  the  doc- 
trine set  forth  in  Knox's  letter  to  Washington,  quoted 
in    his   letter  to   Madison.    24.    In    what   section  did 
Washington  think  there  was  the  greatest  need  of  re- 
form?   25.    Give    reason    Washington    assigned     for 
attending   the   Constitutional    Convention.    26.    What 
does  it  show  concerning  his  character?    27.    Look  up 
other  reasons.1   28.    When  do  Washington's  fears  begin 
to  lessen?    29.    Do  you  find  any  difference  in  the  tone 
of  the  letters  of  Washington  and  Jefferson?    30.    What 
kind  of  powers  does  the  latter  wish  given  to  Congress? 
31.    Name  the  various  changes  he  would  have  made  in 
the  Articles  of  Confederation.    32.    What  proposal  does 
he  object  to?    33.    Was  he  right  or  wrong?    34.    What 
power  did  he   propose  to  place   in  the   hands   of  the 
courts?    35.    Name  the  powers   he   liked  in  the  new 
constitution.     36.     Name    those    he    objected    to.    37. 
Were    his    objections    well    founded?    38.    Is    he    or 
Washington   the    more    constructive?    39.    Name    the 
motive  which  prompted  the  meeting  of  the  first  Con- 
tinental   Congress.     40.     How    did    they    vote?     41. 
What  effect  later  of  this  action?    42.    When  did  the 
enforcing    power    of    the    Union    begin?     43.     What 
kind  of  a  government  formed  by  the  Articles  of  Con- 
federation?    14.    Name   the  proposed  amendments  to 
the    Article*   of    Confederation.    45.    Would    it    have 
been  best  to  have  had  them  adopted?    46.    What  ques- 
tion directly  led  to  the  Constitutional  Convention?    47. 
Name  the  conventions  held.^^8.    What  was  the  work 


98  AMERICAN    HISTORY    STUDIES. 

of  the  Annapolis  convention?  49.  What  did  it  wish 
the  next  one  to  do?  60.  What  powers  had  the  dele- 
gates to  the  Constitutional  Convention?  51.  For  what 
purpose  did  Congress  call  the  convention?  52.  Did  the 
convention  act  within  its  granted  powers?  53.  What 
important  changes  proposed  in  Articles  of  Confedera- 
tion by  Randolph?  54.  What  change  did  he  make 
later  in  the  nature  of  his  resolutions?  55.  What  does 
the  debate  in  the  convention  indicate  in  regard  to  the 
nature  of  the  government  under  the  Articles?  56. 
Under  the  Constitution?  57.  What  marked  difference 
between  a  national  and  a  federal  government?  58. 
Were  the  members  of  the  convention  believers  in  de- 
mocracy? 59.  Name  those  friendly  to  the  idea — those 
opposed.  60.  Explain  why  so  many  opposed  to  the 
idea.  61.  What  ideas  contending  for  mastery  in  the 
convention?  62.  Over  what  question  did  the  conven- 
tion come  nearest  breaking  up?  63.  Form  of  ratifica- 
tion of  constitution.  64.  Who  adopted  the  constitu- 
Uojxi-|  65.  Write  an  essay  on  the  defects  of  the  Articles 
Confederation.  66.  On  the  political  ideas  and  spirit 
of  Washington  and  Jefferson;  comparisons,  67.  On 
the  growth  of  the  idea  of  Union.  68.  On  who  stood  for 
the  best  idea*:  on  the 'whole  in  the  Constitutional  Con- 
vention. 69.  Were  the  people  then  more  moral  than 
now?  70.  Compare  ideas  of  nationality  and  localism. 


lion  c 

tionM 

•yorcon 


American  History  Studies 


No.  5. 


JANUARY,  1898. 


INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION; 
NATIONALITY, 


SELECTIONS  MADE  FROM  THE  SOURCES 


H.  W.  CALDWELL, 

UNIVERSITY  Of  NEBRASKA. 


J.  H.  MILLER,  Publianer, 

LINCOLN,  NEBRASKA. 


Yearly  Subscription,  (0  cents.  Single  Copy,  5  cenU. 


PUBLISHED  MONTHLY,  EXCEPT  JULY  AND  AUGUST. 

Entered  as  second-class  matter  at  the  Post  Office,  Lincoln,  Nebraska, 
U.  S.  A. 


AMERICAN  HISTORY  STUDIES. 


INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  CONSTITU- 
TION; NATIONALITY. 

Constitution  formed  in  1787  has  been 
in  process  of  growth  ever  since  through  in- 
terpretation and  construction.  Of  course, 
it  has  also  grown  by  the  addition  of  fifteen 
amendments.  In  time  these  hav^  been  con- 
tracted or  expanded  by  the  meanings  which  have 
been  attached  to  them  by  the  various  depart- 
ments of  the  government.  Perhaps  the  courts, 
and  especially  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United 
States,  have  been  the  most  potent  factors  in  this 
development,  yet  it  .must  ever  be  kept  in  mind 
that  the  political  departments  of  the  govern- 
ment, namely,  the  legislative  and  the  executive, 
have  also  to  give  final  decisions  in  all  political 
questions;  and  the  first  interpretation  of  the  Con- 
stitution, in  law  making,  in  all  questions  which 
may  become  judicial  as  well. 

There  is  scarcely  a  clause  of  the  Constitution 
which  has  not  been  subjected  to  this  process. 
It  may,  perhaps,  be  stated  without  exaggeration 
that  there  is  not  a  clause  in  the  Constitution  so 
clear  that  varying  ideas  in  regard  to  its  meaning 
have  not  been  set  forth  at  some  time  by  someone. 
It  is  also  true  that  the  Constitution  as  a  whole 
had  to  have  an  interpretation  placed  upon  it. 
Before  a  final  decision  was  given,  the  court  of 
armies  was  called  in-  The  most  desperate  civil 
war  of  all  history  was  needed  to  decide  upon  the 
location  of  sovereignty.  Had  it  not  been  for  the 
existence  of  sectional  slavery,  it  is  probable  that 
there  would  never  have  arisen  the  necessity  for 


GROWTH   OF  NATIONALITY.  101 

making  the  decision.  Yet  we  must  notice  that 
when  an  attempt  was  made  in  our  Constitution 
to  place  some  powers  in  the  central  government, 
and  to  leave  others  in  the  states,  the  line  of  divis- 
ion drawn  was  an  indefinite  one,  hence  the 
chance  came  for  such  a  struggle.  We  have 
already  noticed  the  many  factors  which  were 
tending  to  localism,  and  the  counter  ones  which 
were  developing  a  feeling  of  nationality  as  well 
as  the  fact.  In  this  paper  the  larger  part  of  the 
extracts  are  to  show  the  varying  interpretations 
of  the  Constitution  connected  with  this  idea  of 
nationality.  This  discussion  played  in  the  main 
around  the  question  of  implied  powers,  the  loca- 
tion of  sovereignty,  the  slavery  issue,  and  the 
right  of  determining  the  institutions  of  the  terri- 
tories. It  would  be  claiming  too  much  to  say 
that  in  treating  these  topics  one  had  exhausted 
the  subject.  In  the  brief  space  allotted  me  I 
can  do  no  more  than  give  a  fair  insight  into  the 
first  two,  and  touch  the  others. 

IMPLIED  POWERS. 

The  doctrine  of  "implied  powers"  first  arose 
in  connection  with  the  establishment  of  the 
national  bank  in  1791.  On  this  subject  I  have 
let  Jefferson,  Hamilton,  and  Madison  speak. 
Mr.  Jefferson  in  his  letter  to  President  Washing- 
ton uses  the  following  arguments: 

It  Is  an  established  rule  of  construction  when  a 
phrase  will  bear  either  of  two  meanings  to  give  It 
that  which  will  allow  some  meaning  to  the  oth«r 
parts  of  the  instrument,  and  not  that  which  would 
render  all  the  others  useless.  Certainly  no  such 
universal  power  was  meant  to  be  given  them.  It 
was  intended  to  lace  them  up  straightly  within  the 
enumerated  powers,  and  those  without  which,  as 
means,  these  powers  could  not  be  carried  into  effect. 
It  is  known  that  the  very  power  now  proposed  as  a 
means,  was  rejected  as  an  end,  by  the  convention 
which  formed  the  constitution. 


102  AMERICAN    HISTORY    STUDIES. 

The  second  general  phrase  is,  "to  make  all  laws 
necessary  and  proper  for  carrying  into  execution  the 
enumerated  powers."  But  they  can  all  be  carried 
into  execution  without  a  bank.  .  . "  .. 

.  .  .  The  constitution  allows  only  the  means 
which  are  "necessary,"  not  those  which  are  merely 
"convenient"  for  effecting  the  enumerated  powers. 
If  such  a  latitude  of  construction  be  allowed  to  this 
phrase  as  to  give  any  non-enumerated  power,  it  will 
go  to  every  one,  for  there  is  not  one  which  ingenuity 
may  not  torture  into  a  convenience  in  some  instance 
or  other,  ...  It  would  swallow  up  all  the  dele- 
gated powers,  and  reduce  the  whole  to  one  power  as 
before  observed.  Therefore  it  was  that  the  constitu- 
tion restrained  them  to  the  necessary  means.  Can  it 
be  thought  that  the  constitution  intended  that  for  a 
shade  or  two  of  convenience,  more  or  less,  congress 
should  be  authorized  to  break  down  the  most  ancient 
and  fundamental  laws? — Writings  of  Thomas  Jeffer- 
son, vol.  7  (1895  ed.),  pp.  286-289. 

Hamilton  argues  for  the  constitutionality  of 
the  bank,  and  in  doing  this  struck  a  great  blow 
for  nationality.  Some  of  the  most  telling  points 
of  his  argument  are  these: 

Now  it  appears  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  that 
this  general  principle  is  inJierent  in  the  very  definition  of 
government,  and  essential  to  every  step  of  the  progress 
to  be  made  by  that  of  the  United  States,  namely,  that 
every  power  vested  in  a  government  is  in  its  nature 
SOVEREIGN,  and  includes,  by  force  of  the  term,  a  right  to 
employ  all  the  means  requisite,  and  fairly  applicable, 
to  the  attainment  of  the  ends  of  such  power,  and  which 
are  not  precluded  by  restrictions  and  exceptions  speci- 
fied in  the  constitution;  or  not  immoral;  or  not  con- 
trary to  the  essential  ends  of  political  society. 
• 

It  fs  not  denied  that  there  are  implied  as  well  as  ex- 
press powers,  and  that  the  former  are  as  effectually 
delegated  as  the  latter;  and  .  .  .  there  is  another 
class  of  powers,  which  may  be  properly  denominated 
resulting  powers.  It  will  not  be  doubted  that  if  the 
United  States  should  make  a  conquest  of  any  of  the  ter- 
ritories of  its  neighbors  they  would  possess  sovereign 
jurisdiction  over  the  conquered  territory.  This  would 


GROWTH  OF  NATIONALITY.  103 

rather  be  the  result  from  the  whole  mass  of  the  powers 
of  the  government,  and  from  the  nature  of  political 
society,  than  a  consequence  of  either  of  the  powers 
specially  enumerated. 

Then  ...  as  a  power  of  erecting  a  corporation 
may  as  well  be  implied  as  any  other  thing;  it  may  as 
well  be  employed  as  an  instrument  or  means  of  carry- 
ing into  execution  any  of  the  specified  powers,  as  any 
other  instrument  or  means  whatever. 

.  .  .  Necessary  often  means  no  more^than  needful, 
requisite,  incidental,  useful,  or  conducive  to,  .  .  .  and 
it  is  the  true  one  in  'which  it  is  to  be  understood 
as  used  in  the  constitution.  The  whole  turn  of  the 
clause  containing  it  indicates  that  it  was  the  intent  of 
the  convention,  by  that  clause,  to  give  a  liberal  latitude 
to  the  exercise  of  the  specified  powers.  The  expres- 
sions have  a  peculiar  comprehensiveness.  They  are: 
"To  make  all  laws  necessary  and  proper  for  carrying 
into  execution  the  foregoing  powers,  and  all  other 
powers  vested  by  the  constitution  in  the  government  of 
the  United  States,  or  in  any  department  or  office 
thereof."  To  understand  the  word  as  the  Secretary  of 
State  does  would  be  to  depart  from  its  obvious  and 
popular  sense  and  to  give  it  a  restrictive  ^operation,  an 
idea  never  before  entertained.  It  would  be  to  give  it 
the  same  force  as  if  the  word  absolutely  or  Indispensa- 
bly had  been  prefixed  to  It. 

[It  is]  no  valid  objection  to  the  doctrine  to  say  that 
it  is  calculated  to  extend  the  powers  of  the  government 
throughout  the  entire  sphere  of  state  legislation.  The 
same  thing  has  been  said,  and  may  be  said  with  regard 
to  every  exercise  of  power,  by  implication  or  construc- 
tion. The  moment  the  literal  meaning  is  departed  from 
there  is  a  chance  of  error  and  abuse;  and  yet  an  adher- 
ence to  the  letter  of  its  powers  would  at  once  arrest  the 
motion  of  government.  It  is  not  only  agreed  on  all 
hands  that  the  exercise  of  constructive  powers  is  indis- 
pensable, but  every  act  which  has  been  passed  is  more 
«r  less  an  exemplification  of  it.  .  .  . 

That  which  declares  the  power  of  the  President  to 
remove  officers  at  pleasure  acknowledges  the  same 
truth. 

It  leaves,  therefore,  a  criterion  of  what  Is  constlto- 


104  AMERICAN    HISTORY    STUDIES. 

tional  and  of  what  is  not  so.  This  criterion  is  the  end 
to  which  the  measure  relates  as  a  mean.  If  the  end  be 
clearly  comprehended  within  any  of  the  specified 
powers,  and  if  the  measure  have  an  ohvious  relation  to 
that  end  and  is  not  forbidden  by  any  particular  pro- 
vision of  the  constitution,  it  may  safely  be  deemed  to 
come  within  the  compass  of  the  national  authority. 
There  is  also  this  further  criterion,  which  may  ma- 
terially assist  the  decision.  Does  the  proposed  meas- 
ure abridge  a  pre-existing  right  of  any  state  or  of  any 
individual?  If  it  does  not,  there  is  a  strong  presump- 
tion in  favour  of  its  constitutionality;  and  slighter 
relations  to  any  declared  object  of  the  constitution  may 
be  permitted  to  turn  the  scale. — Works  of  Alexander 
Hamilton,  vol.  I,  pp.  112-123. 

Madison  was  in  the  House  at  this  time,  and 
had  at  first  been  the  spokesman  of  the  adminis- 
tration. On  this  question  of  the  bank  he  sepa- 
rated himself  entirely  from  Hamilton,  with 
whom  he  had  so  long  worked,  and  became  the 
leader,  with  Jefferson,  of  the  newly  forming 
Republican  party.  In  Congress  he  said: 

After  some  general  remarks  on  the  limitations  of  all 
political  power,  he  took  notice  of  the  peculiar  manner 
in  which  the  Federal  Government  is  limited.  It  is  not 
a  general  grant,  out  of  which  particular  powers  are 

fexcepted;  V^t  is  a  grant  of  particular  powers  only,  leav- 
ing the  general  mass  in  other  hands.  So  it  had  been 
understood  by  its  friends  and  its  foes,  and  so  it  was 
to  be  interpreted.  • 

/The  essential  characteristic  of  the  Government,  as 
composed  of  limited  and  enumerated  powers,  would  be 
destroyed  if,  instead  of  direct  and  incidental  means 
any  means  could  be  used,  which,  in  the  language  of 
the  preamble  to  the  bill,  "might  be  conceived  jto  be  con- 
ducive to  the  successful  conducting  of  the1  finances, 
or  might  be  conceived  to  tend  to  give  facility  to  the 
obtaining  of  loans.  .  .  . 

The  Doctrine  of  implication  is  always  a  tender  one. 
The  danger  of  it  has  been  felt  in  other  Govern- 
ments. .  .  . 

The  delicacy  was  felt  in  the  adoption  of  our  own; 


GROWTH   OF  NATIONALITY.  105 

the  danger  may  also  be  felt  if  we  do  not  keep  close  to  I 
our  chartered  authorities. 

Mark  the  reasoning  on  which  the  validity  of  tHe  bill 
depends!  To  borrow  money  is  made  the  end,  and  the 
accumulation  of  capital  implied  as  the  means.  The 
accumulation  of  capital  is  then  the  end,  and  a  bank 
implied  as  the  means.  The  bank  is  then  the  end,  and 
a  charter  of  incorporation,  a  monopoly,  capital  punish- 
ments, etc.,  implied  as  the  means. 

If  implications  thus  remote  and  multiplied  can  be 
linked  together,  a  chain  may  be  formed  that  will  reach  * 
every  object   of   legislation,   every  object   within  the  * 
whole  compass  of  political  economy. 

The  latitude  of  interpretation  required  by  the  bill  is 
condemned  by  the  rule  furnished  by  the  constitution  \ 
itself. 

The  danger  of  implied  power  does  not  arise  from  its 
assuming  a  new  principle;  we  have  not  only  practiced 
it  often,  but  we  can  scarcely  proceed  without  it;  nor 
does  the  danger  proceed  so  much  from  the  extent' of 
power  as  from  its  uncertainty. — Benton,  Debates,  vol.  I, 
pp.  275,  276. 

Fisher  Ames. 

The  doctrine  that  powers  may  be  implied  which  are 
not  expressly  vested  in  Congress  has  long  been  a  bug- 
bear to  a  great  many  worthy  persons.  They  appre- 
hend that  Congress,  by  putting  constructions  upon  the 
constitution,  will  govern  by  its  own  arbitrary  discre- 
tion; and  therefore  that  it  ought  to  be  bound  to 
exercise  the  powers  expressly  given,  and  those  only. 

If  Congress  may  not  make  laws  conformably  to  the 
powers  plainly  implied,  though  not  expressed  in  the 
frame  of  Government,  it  is  rather  late  in  the  day  to 
adopt  it  as  a  principle  of  conduct.'  A  great  part  of  our 
two  years'  labor  is  lost,  and  worse  than  lost  to  the 
public,  for  we  have  scarcely  made  a  law  in  which  we 
have  not  exercised  our  discretion  with  regard  to  the 
true  intent  of  the  constitution. — /&.,  p.  279. 

The  question  of  the  constitutionality  of  the  - 
bank  came  before  the  Supreme  Court  in  1819, 
in  McCulloch  vs.  Maryland.     Chief  Justice  Mar- 
shall wrote  the  opinion  in  the  case,  and  held  to 
the  doctrine  of  implied  powers.     In  this  case 


10(5  AMERICAN    HISTORY    STUDIES. 

again  the  idea  of  nationality  was  affirmed.     In 
part  he  said: 

From  these  conventions  the  Constitution  derives  its 
whole  authority.  The  government  proceeds  directly 
from  the  people;  is  "ordained  and  established"  in  the 
name  of  the  people;  and  is  declared  to  be  ordained  "in 
order  to  form  a  more  perfect  union,  establish  justice, 
insure  domestic  tranquility,  and  secure  the  blessings  of 
liberty  to  themselves  and  to  their  posterity."  The  • 
assent  of  the  States,  in  their  sovereign  capacity,  is  im- 
plied in  calling  a  convention,  and  thus  submitting  that 
instrument  to  the  people.  But  the  people  were  at  per- 
fect liberty  to  accept  or  reject  it;  and  their  act  was 
final.  It  required  not  the  affirmance,  and  could  not  be 
negatived  by  the  State  governments.  The  Constitu- 
tion, when  thus  adopted,  was  of  complete  obligation,  f 
and  bound  the  State  sovereignties. 

This  government  is  acknowledged  by  all  to  be  one  of 
enumerated  powers.  The  principle,  that  it  can  exercise 
only  the  powers  granted  to  it,  would  seem  too  apparent 
to  have  required  to  be  enforced  by  all  those  arguments 
which  its  enlightened  friends,  while  it  was  depending 
before  the  people,  found  it  necessary  to  urge.  That 
principle  is  now  universally  admitted.  But  the  question 
respecting  the  extent  of  the  powers  actually  granted  is 
perpetually  arising,  and  will  probably  continue  to  arise 
as  long  as  our  system  shall  exist. 

Among  the  enumerated  powers  we  do  not  find  that 
of  establishing  a  bank  or  creating  a  corporation.    But 
there  is  no  phrase  in  the  instrument  which,  like  the 
Articles  of  Confederation,  excludes  incidental  or  im-  | 
plied    powers;     and    which    requires    that    everything  I 
granted  shall  be  expressly  and  minutely  described.    .    . 

Although,  among  the  enumerated  powers  of  govern- 
ment, we  do  not  find  the  word  "bank"  or  "incorpora- 
tion," we  find  the  great  powers  to  lay  and  collect 
taxes;  to  borrow  money;  to  regulate  commerce;  to 
declare  and  conduct  a  war;  and  to  raise  and  support 
armies  and  navies. 

But  it  may,  with  great  reason,  be  contended  that  a 
government  intrusted  with  such  ample  powers,  on  the 


GROWTH   OP   NATIONALITY.  107 

due  execution  of  which  the  happiness  and  prosperity  of 
the  nation  so  vitally  depends,  must  also  be  intrusted    \ 
with  ample  means  for  their  execution. 

Is  that  construction  of  the  Constitution  to  be  pre- 
ferred which  would  render  these  operations  difficult, 
hazardous,  and  expensive?  Can  we  adopt  that  con- 
struction .  .  .  which  would  impute  to  the  framers 
of  that  instrument,  when  granting  these  powers  for  the 
public  good,  the  intention  of  impeding  their  exercise  by 
withholding  a  choice  of  means?  If,  indeed,  such  be 
the  mandate  of  the  Constitution,  we  have  only  to  obey; 
but  that  instrument  does  not  profess  to  enumerate  the 
means  by  which  the  powers  it  confers  may  be  exe- 
cuted ;  nor  does  it  prohibit  the  creation  of  a  corpora-  | 
tion  if  the  existence  of  such  a  being  be  essential  to  the  \ 
beneficial  exercise  of  those  powers.  It  is,  then,  the 
subject  of  fair  inquiry  how  far  such  means  may  be  em- 
ployed. 

But  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  has  not 
left  the  right  of  congress  to  employ  the  necessary 
means  for  the  execution  of  the  powers  conferred  on 
the  government  to  general  reasoning.  To  its  enumera- 
tion of  powers  is  added  that  of  making  "all  laws  which 
shall  be  necessary  and  proper  for  carrying  into  execu- 
tion the  foregoing  powers,  and  all  other  powers  vested 
by  this  constitution,  in  the  government  of  the  United 
States,  or  in  any  department  thereof." 

Congress  is  not  empowered  by  it  to  make  all  laws 
which  may  have  relation  to  the  powers  conferred  on 
the  government,  but  such  only  as  may  be  "necessary 
and  proper"  for  carrying  them  into  execution.  The 
word  "necessary"  is  considered  as  controlling  the 
whole  sentence,  and  as  limiting  the  right  to  pass  laws 
for  the  execution  of  the  granted  powers  to  such  as  are 
indispensable,  and  without  which  the  power  would  be 
nugatory.  .  .  . 

Is  it  true  that  this  is  the  sense  in  which  the  word 
"necessary"  is  always  used? 

To  employ  the  means  necessary  to  an  end  is  gen-  * 
erally  understood  as  employing  any  means  calculated/ 
to  produce  the  end,  and  not  as  being  confined  to  those 


108  AMERICAN    HISTORY    STUDIES. 

single  means  without  which  the  end  would  be  entirely 
unattainable. 

A  thing  may  be  necessary,  very  necessary,  absolutely 
or  indispensably  necessary. 

If  the  word  "necessary"  means  "needful,"  "requisite," 
"essential,"  "conducive  to"  in  order  to  let  In  the  power 
of  punishment  for  the  infraction  of  law,  why  is  it  not 
equally  comprehensive  when  required  to  authorize  the 
use  of  means  which  facilitate  the  execution  of  the 
powers  of  government  without  the  infliction  of  punish- 
ment? .  .  .  That  any  means  adapted  to  the  end;  any 
means  which  tended  directly  to  the  execution  of  the 
constitutional  powers  of  the  government,  were  in  them- 
selves constitutional. 

Let  the  end  be  legitimate,  let  it  be  within  the  scope 
of  the  Constitution,  and  all  means  which  are  appro- 
priate, which  are  plainly  adapted  to  that  end,  which 
are  not  prohibited,  but  consist  with  the  letter  and 
spirit  of  the  constitution,  are  constitutional. — Thayer, 
Cases  in  Constitutional  Law,  vol.  I,  pp.  274-285. 

QUESTIONS. 

•1.  When  was  the  present  constitution  formed?  2.  Is 
it  expressed  in  general  or  specific  terms?  3.  Who  in- 
terprets the  constitution?  -4.  Who  interprets  it  finally? 
5.  What  do  you  understand  by  "implied^  powers"?  6. 
Could  there  be  any  implied  powers  under  the  Articles 
of  Confederation?  7.  Over  what  question  did  the  dis- 
cussion of  the  "implied  powers"  first  arise?  8.  Sum- 
marize Jefferson's  argument.  9.  Can  you  give  any 
example  to  illustrate  his  first  sentence?  10.  What  did 
he  believe  "necessary"  meant?  11.  What  principle 
does  Hamilton  start  out  with?  12.  What  three  kinds 
of  powers  does  he  name?  13.  What  meanings  does  he 
give  to  "necessary"?  14.  What  means  does  he  claim 
may  be  used  when  the  right  to  the  end  is  admitted? 
15.  Summarize  Madison's  arguments.  16.  Compare 
arguments  of  the  three  men.  17.  Give  Fisher  Ames' 
argument.  18.  Make  an  outline  of  the  arguments  of 
John  Marshall.  19.  Of  all  their  arguments,  which  do 
you  consider  the  greatest?  Why?  20.  Was  it  impor- 
tant to  have  the  doctrine  of  implied  powers  prevail? 
Why? 

SOVEREIGNTY.      IN  NATION  OR  STATE? 

Perhaps  the  first  formal  statement  of  that 


GROWTH  OF  NATIONALITY.  109 

interpretation  of  the  Constitution  which  af- 
firmed the  right  of  the  state  to  be  the  final  judge 
of  its  powers  was  given  in  the  Kentucky  Keso- 
lutions  of  1798.  Indirectly  out  of  these  resolu- 
tions came  nullification  and  secession.  Whether 
this  succession  was  legitimate  or  not  is  an  open 
question,  but  the  parentage,  as  far  as  use  is 
concerned,  is  undoubted.  The  important  re- 
solve read  as  follows: 

1.  Resolved,  That  the  several  states  composing  the 
United  States  of  America  are  not  united  on  the  princi- 
ple of  unlimited  submission  to  their  general  govern- 
ment, but  thLt  by  compact  under  the  style  and  title  of 
a  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  and  of  amendments 
thereto,  they  constituted  a  general  government  for 
special  purposes,  delegated  to  that  government  certain 
definite  powers,  reserving,  each  state  to  itself,  the  re- 
siduary mass  of  right  to  their  own  self-government; 
and  that  whensoever  the  general  government  assumes 
undelegate  powers  its  acts  are  unauthoritative,  void, 
and  of  no  force.  .  .  . 

To  this  resolution  several  states  answered 
that  the  final  judge  of  the  powers  of  the  federal 
government  rested  in  the  Supreme  Court.  The 
legislature  of  Kentucky  replied  in  1799  in  these 
words,  in  part : 

Resolved,  That  this  commonwealth  consider  the  Fed- 
eral Union,  upon  the  terms  and  for  the  purposes  speci- 
fied in  the  late  compact,  as  conducive  to  the  liberty  and 
happiness  of  the  several  states;  That  it  does  now  un- 
equivocally declare  its  attachment  to  the  Union,  and 
to  that  compact,  agreeably  to  its  obvious  and  real  in- 
tention, and  will  be  among  the  last  to  seek  its  dissolu- 
tion; That  if  those  who  administer  the  general  gov- 
ernment be  permitted  to  transgress  the  limits  fixed  by 
that  compact,  by  a  total  disregard  to  the  special  delega- 
tions of  power  therein  contained,  an  annihilation  of 
the/-  state  governments  and  the  creation  upon  their 
ruins  of  a  general  consolidated  government  will  be  the 
inevitable  consequence;  That  the  principle  and  con- 
struction contended  for  by  sundry  of^ihe  state  legisla- 
tures, that  the  general  government  Is  the  exclusive 


110  AMERICAN    HISTORY    STUDIES.^ 

judge  of  the  extent  of  the  powers  delegated  to  it,  stop 
nothing  short  of  despotism,— since  the  discretion  of 
those  who  administer  the  government,  and  not  the 
constitution,  would  be  the  measure  of  their  powers. 
.  .  .  That  this  commonwealth  does,  under  the  most 
deliberate  reconsideration,  declare  the  said  alien  and 
sedition  laws  are,  in  their  opinion,  palpable  violations 
of  the  said  Constitution.  .  .  .  That,  although  this 
commonwealth,  as  a  party  to  the  federal  compact,  will 
bow  to  the  laws  of  the  Union,  yet  it  does  at  the  same 
time  declare  that  it  will  not  now,  or  ever  hereafter, 
cease  to  oppose  in  a  constitutional  manner  every  at- 
tempt, at  what  quarter  soever  offered,  to  violate  that 
compact.  .  .  .—Cited  in  Cluskey,  Political  Text-Book. 

James  Wilson,  in  the  Pennsylvania  ratifying 
convention,  in  1787,  outlined  his  opinion  in  re- 
gard to  the  nature  of  the  Constitution  in  these 
words.  This  description  may  be  contrasted 
with  the  preceding: 

The  very  manner  of  introducing  this  Constitution,  by 
the  recognition  of  the  authority  of  the  people,  is  said 
to  change  the  principle  of  the  present  Confederation 
and  to  introduce  a  consolidating  and  absorbing  govern- 
ment. .  .  . 

In  this  confederated  republic,  the  sovereignty  of  the 
states,  it  is  said,  is  not  preserved.  We  are  told  that 
there  cannot  be  two  sovereign  powers,  and  that  a  sub- 
ordinate sovereignty  is  no  sovereignty. 

It  has  not  been,  nor,  I  presume,  will  it  be,  denied 
that  somewhere  there  is,  and  of  necessity  must  be,  a 
supreme,  absolute,  and  uncontrollable  authority. 

His  [Mr.  Findley's]  position  is  that  the  supreme 
power  resides  in  the  states,  as  governments;  and  mine 
is  that  it  resides  in  the  people,  as  the  foundation  of  gov- 
ernment; that  the  people  have  not — that  the  people 
meant  not— and  that  the  people  ought  not,  to  part  with 
It,  to  any  government  whatsoever. — Cited  in  Foster  on 
the  Constitution,  pp.  10^-106. 

I  consider  the  people  of  the  United  States  as  form- 
ing one  great  community;  and  I  consider  the  people  of 
the  different  States  as  forming  communities,  again, 


GROWTH  OF  NATIONALITY.  Ill 

on  a  'lesser  scale.  From  this  great  division  of  the 
people  into  distinct  communities,  it  will  be  found  neces- 
sary that  different  proportions  of  legislative  power 
should  be  given  to  the  government,  according  to  the 
nature,  number,  and  magnitude  of  their  objects. 

Whosoever  considers,  in  a  combined  and  comprehen- 
sive view,  the  general  texture  of  the  Constitution,  will 
be  satisfied  that  the  people  of  the  United  States  in- 
tended to  form  themselves  into  a  nation  for  national 
purposes.  They  instituted  for  such  purposes  a  national 
government,  complete  in  all  its  parts,  with  powers 
legislative,  executive,  and  judiciary,  and  in  all  those 
powers  extending  over  the  whole  nation. — /b.,  107-109. 

Rawle,  in  his  introduction  to  Blackstone,  uses 
*  the  following  phrase.     He  wrote  in  1825 : 

Y'<<frlift  fif!flPPa*nTl  of  n.  PtatQ  from  the  Union  depends  op 
the  will  of  the  people  of  such  a  State.  The  people 
alone,  as  we  have  already  seen,  hold  the  power  to  alter 
their  constitution." — Cited  in  Foster,  p.  113. 

The  Massachusetts  legislature  (Federal),  in 
discussing  the  annexation  of  Louisiana,  1803, 
indicated  very  clearly  its  views  of  the  nature  of 
the  Constitution. 

^  That  the  annexation  of  Louisiana  to  the  Union 
transcends  the  constitutional  power  of  the  govern- 
ment of  the  United  States.  It  forms  a  new  Confeder- 
acy, to  which  the  States  united  by  the  former  compact 
are  not  bound  to  adhere. — /&.,  p.  116. 

A  most  elaborate  discussion  of  the  nature  of 
the  Constitution  took  place  over  the  admission 
of  Louisiana.  Josiah  Quincy,  the  leader  of  the 
Federalists,  discussed  the  subject  fully.  Ex- 
tensive extracts  are  given  from  his  speech,  as  it 
sets  forth  the  views  of  his  party  at  that  time 
most  ably  and  completely. 

But,  sir,  the  principle  of  this  bill  materially  affects 
the  liberties  and  rights  of  the  whole  people  of  the 
United  States.  To  me  it  appears  that  it  would  justify 
a  revolution  in  this  country,  and  that,  in  no  great 
length  of  time,  it  may  produce  it.  When  I  see  the 


112  AMERICAN    HISTORY    STUDIES. 

zeal  and  perseverance  with  which  this  bill  has  been 
urged  along  its  parliamentary  path,  when  I  know  the 
local  interests  and  associated  projects  which  combine 
to  promote  its  success,  all  opposition  to  it  seems  mani- 
festly unavailing.  I  am  almost  tempted  to  leave,  with- 
out a  struggle,  my  country  to  its  fate. 

'if  there  be  a  man  in  this  House,  or  nation,  who 
cherishes  the  Constitution,  ...  I  fall  not  behind 
him  in  such  sentiments^  I  will  yield  to  no  man  in 
attachment  to  this  Constitution,  in  veneration  for  the 
sages  who  laid  its  foundations,  in  devotion  for  those 
principles  which  form  its  cement  and  constitute  its 
proportions.  What,  then,  must  be  my  feelings;  what 
ought  to  be  the  feelings  of  a  man,  cherishing  such  sen- 
timents, when  he  sees  an  act  contemplated  which  lays 
ruin  at  the  foot  of  all  these  hopes. 

Mr.  Speaker,  there  is  a  great  rule  of  human  conduct 
which  he  who  honestly  observes  can  not  err  widely 
from  the  path  of  his  sought  duty.  It  is,  to  be  very 
scrupulous  concerning  the  principles  you  select  as  the 
test  of  your  rights  and  obligations;  to  be  very  faith- 
ful in  noticing  the  result  of  their  application;  and  to 
be  very  fearless  in  tracing  and  exposing  their  immedi- 
ate effects  and  distant  consequences.  Under  the  sanc- 
tion of  this  rule  of  conduct,  I  am  compelled  to  declare 
it  as  my  deliberate  opinion  that,  if  this  bill  passes,  the 
bonds  of  this  union  are,  virtually,  dissolved;  that  the 
States  which  compose  it  are  free  from  their  moral  obliga- 
tions, and  that,  as  it  will  be  the  right  of  all,  so  it  will  be 
the  duty  of  some,  to  prepare,  definitely,  for  a  separation: 
amicably,  if  they  can;  violently,  if  they  must. 

The 'bill  which  is  now  proposed  to  be  passed  has 
this  assumed  principle  for  its  basis:  that  the  three 
branches  of  this  national  government,  without  recur- 
rence to  conventions  of  the  people  in  the  States,  or  to 
the  Legislatures  of  the  States,  are  authorized  to  admit 
new  partners  to  a  share  of  the  political  power,  in 
countries  out  of-  the  original  limits  of  the  United 
States.  Now,  this  assumed  principle,  i  maintain  to 
be  altogether  without  any  sanction  in  the  Constitution. 
I  declare  it  to  be  a  manifest  and  atrocious  usurpation 
of  power;  of  a  nature  dissolving,  according  to  undeni- 
able principles  of  moral  law,  the  obligations  of  our 


•   GROWTH   OF   NATIONALITY.  113 

national  compact,  and  leading  to  the  awful  conse- 
(juences  which  flow  from  such  a  state  of  things. 

Touching  the  general  nature  of  the  instrument  called 
the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  there  is  no  ob- 
scurity; .  .  .  There  can  be  no  doubt  about  its 
nature.  It  is  a  political  compact.  .  .  . 

It  is,  we  the  people  of  the  United  States,  for  our- 
selves and  our  posterity;  not  for  the  people  of  Louis- 
iana; nor  for  the  people  of  New  Orleans,  or  of  Canada. 
None  of  these  enter  into  the  scope  of  the  instrument; 
it  embraces  only  "the  United  States  of  America." 

Sir,  what  is  this  power  we  propose  now  to  usurp? 
Nothing  less  than  a  power  changing  all  the  propor- 
tions of  the  weight  and  influence  possessed  by  the 
potent  sovereignties  composing  this  Union.  A  stranger 
is  to  be  introduced  to  an  equal  share  without  their 
consent.  Upon  a  principle  pretended  to  be  deduced 
from  the  Constitution,  this  government,  after  this  bill 
passes,  may  and  will  multiply  foreign  partners  in. 
power  at  its  own  mere  notion;  at  its  irresponsible 
pleasure;  in-  other  words,  as  local  interests,  party  pas- 
sions, or  ambitious  views  may  suggest. 

"But,"  the  gentleman  adds,  "what  shall  we  do  if  we 
do  not  admit  the  people  of  Louisiana  into  our  Union? 
Our  children  are  settling  that  country."  Sir,  it  is  no 
concern  of  mine  what  he  does. 

This  Constitution  never  was,  and  never  can  be, 
strained  to  lap  over  all  the  wilderness  of  the  West 
without  essentially  affecting  both  the  rights  and  con- 
venience of  its  real  proprietors. 

Suppose,  then,  that  it  had  been  distinctly  foreseen 
that,  in  addition  to  the  effect  of  this  weight,  the  whole 
population  of  a  world  beyond -the  Mississippi  was  to 
be  brought  into  this  and  the  other  branch  of  the 
Legislature,  to  form  our  laws,  control  our  rights,  and 
decide  our  destiny  Sir,  can  it  be  pretended  that  the 
patriots  of  that  day  would  for  one  moment  have 
listened  to  it?  They  were  not  madmen.  They  had  not 
taken  degrees  at  the  hospital  of  idiocy. 

It  was  not  for  these  men  [people  of  Louisiana]  that 
our  fathers  fought.  It  was  not  for  them  that  this 
Constitution  was  adopted.  You  have  no  authority  to 
throw  the  rights  and  liberties  and  properties  of  this 
people  into  the  "hotch-pot"  with  the  wild  men  of  the 
Missouri,  nor  with  the  mixed,  though  more  respecta- 


114  AMERICAN    HISTORY    STUDIES. 

ble  race  of  Anglo-Hispano-Gallo-Americans  who  bask 
on  the  sands  in  the  mouth  of  the  Mississippi.  I  will 
add  only  a  few  words,  in  relation  to  the  moral  and 
political  consequences  of  usurping  this  power.  I  have 
said  that  it  would  be  a  virtual  dissolution  of  the 
Union;  and  gentlemen  express  great  sensibility  at  the 
expression.  But  the  true  source  of  terror  is  not  the 
declaration  I  have  made,  but  the  deed  you  propose. 

New  States  are  intended  to  be  formed  beyond  the 
Mississippi.  There  is  no  limit  to  men's  imaginations 
on  this  subject,  short  of  California  and  the  Columbia 
River. 

The  extension  of  this  principle  to  the  States  con- 
templated beyond  the  Mississippi  cannot,  will  not,  and 
ought  not  to  be  borne. — American  Orations,  vol.  I,  pp. 
180-202. 

The  New  England  states  spoke  in  these  words 
'in  the  Hartford  convention  of  1814: 

In  cases  of  deliberate,  dangerous,  and  palpable  in- 
fractions of  the  Constitution,  affecting  the  sovereignty 
of  a  State  and  liberties  of  the  people,  it  is  not  only  the 
right,  but  the  duty,  of  such  a  State  to  interpose  its 
authority  for  their  protection,  in  the  manner  best  cal- 
culated to  secure  that  end.  When  emergencies  occur 
which  are  either  beyond  the  reach  of  the  judicial 
tribunals,  or  too  pressing  to  admit  of  the  delay  inci- 
dent to  their  forms,  States  which  have  no  common 
umpire  must  be  their  own  judges,  and  execute  their 
own  decisions.  It  will  thus  be  proper  for  the  several 
States  to  await  the  ultimate  disposal  of  the  obnoxious 
measures  recommended  by  the  Secretary  of  War,  or 
pending  before  Congress,  and  so  to  use  their  power 
according  to  the  character  these  measures  shall  finally 
assume,  as  effectually  to  protect  their  own  sovereignty 
and  the  rights  and  liberties  of  their  citizens. — Cited  in 
Foster  on  the  Constitution,  vol.  I,  pp.  117,  118. 

As  late  as  1844  and  1845  we  find  the  legis 
lature  of  Massachusetts  using  these  phrases: 

V  That  the  project  of  annexation  of  Texas,  unless  ar- 
rested on  the  threshold,  may  drive  these  States  into  a 
dissolution  of  the  Union. — Foster,  p.  118. 

As  the  powers  of  legislation  granted  in  the  Constitu- 
tion of  the  United  States  to  Congress  do  not  embrace 


GROWTH   OF   NATIONALITY.  115 

the  case  of  the  admission  of  a  foreign  state,  or  foreign 
territory,  by  legislation,  into  the  Union,  such  an  act  of 
admission  would  have  no  binding  force  whatever  on 
the  people  of  Massachusetts. — /&.,  p.  118. 

The  legislature  of  Wisconsin  (Republican) 
passed  the  following  in  1859: 

Whereas,  The  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  has 
assumed  appellate  jurisdiction  in  the  petition  of  Sher- 
man M.  Booth  for  a  writ  of  habeas  corpus  presented  and 
prosecuted  to  a  final  judgment  in  the  Supreme  Court  of 
this  State,  and  .  .  .  assumed  the  power  to  reverse 
that  judgment  in  a  matter  involving  the  personal  liberty 
of  the  citizen.  .  .  . 

..      Resolved,  That  this  assumption    .    .    .    is  an  act  of 
'  undelegated   power,   and   therefore   without   authority, 
void,  and  of  no  force. 

Resolved,  That  the  [national]  Government  .  .  . 
was  not  made  exclusive  or  final  judge  of  the  extent  of 
the  powers  delegated  to  itself,  but  that  .  .  .  each 
[state]  has  an  equal  right  to  judge  for  itself,  as  well 
of  infractions  as  the  mode  and  measure  of  redress. 

Resolved,  That  the  principle  .  .  .  that  the  gen- 
eral Government  is  the  exclusive  judge  of  the  extent  of 
the  powers  delegated  to  it,  stop  nothing  short  of  des- 
potism; since  the  discretion  of  those  who  administer 
the  Government,  and  not  the  Constitution,  would  be  the 
measure  of  their  powers;  that  the  several  States  which 
formed  that  instrument,  being  sovereign  and  independ- 
ent, have  the  unquestionable  right  to  judge  of  its  infrac- 
tions; and  that  a  positive  defiance  of  those  sovereign- 
ties of  all  unauthorized  acts  done  under  color  of  that 
instrument  is  the  rightful  remedy. — Cited  in  Tyler's  Life 
of  Taney,  p.  SOI. 

But  let  us  listen  to  Lincoln  to  hear  what  he 
has  to  say  on  this  interesting  subject.  These 
extracts  are  from  his  inaugural,  and  from  his 
first  annual  message: 

I  hold  that  in  contemplation  of  universal  law  and  of 
the  Constitution  the  union  of  these  States  is  perpetual. 
Perpetuity  is  implied,  if  not  expressed,  in  the  funda- 
mental law  of  all  national  Governments. 

Again,  if  the  United  States  be  not  a  government 
proper,  but  an  association  of  States  in  the  nature  of 


116  AMERICAN    HISTORY    STUDIES. 

ccutract  merely,  can  it,  as  a  contract,  be  peaceably 
unmade  by  less  than  all  parties  who  make  it?  One 
party  to  a  contract  may  violate  it,  break  it,  s*  to 
speak;  but  does  it  not  require  all  to  lawfully  re- 
scind it? 

...  no  State  upon  its  own  mere  motion  can  law- 
fully get  out  of  the  Union;  that  resolves  and  ordi- 
nances to  that  effect  are  legally  void;  and  that  acts  of 
violence  within  any  State  or  States,  against  the  author- 
ity of  the  United  States,  are  insurrectionary  or  revolu- 
tionary, according  to  circumstances. 

I  therefore  consider  that  in  view  of  the  Constitution 
and  the  laws,  the  Union  is  unbroken;  and  to  the  ex- 
tent of  my  ability  I  shall  take  care,  as  the  Constitu- 
tion itself  expressly  enjoins  upon  me,  that  the  laws  of 
the  Union  be  faithfully  executed  in  all  the  States. 

And  this  issue  embraces  more  than  the  fate  of  the 
United  States.  It  represents  to  the  whole  family  of  man 
the  question  whether  a  constitutional  republic  or  democ- 
racy— a  government  of  the  people  by  the  same  people — 
can  or  cannot  maintain  its  territorial  integrity  against 
its  own  domestic  foes. 

"Is  there  in  all  republics  this  inherent  and  fatal 
weakness?"  Must  a  government  of  necessity  be  too 
strong  for  the  liberties  of  its  own  people,  or  too  weak 
to  maintain  its  own  existence? 

It  might  seem,  at  first  thought,  to  be  of  little  differ- 
ence whether  the  present  movement  at  the  South  be 
called  "secession"  or  "rebellion."  The  movers,  how- 
ever, well  understand  the  difference.  At  the  beginning 
they  knew  they  could  never  raise  their  treason  to  any 
respectable  magnitude  by  any  name  which  implies 
violation  of  law. 

They  invented  an  ingenious  sophism  which,  if  con- 
ceded, was  followed  by  perfectly  logical  steps,  through 
all  the  incidents,  to  the  complete  destruction  of  the 
Union.  The  sophism  itself  is  that  any  state  of  the 
Union  may,  consistently  with  the  national  constitution, 
and  therefore  lawfully  and  peacefully,  withdraw  from 
the  Union  without  the  consent  of  the  Union  or  of  any 
other  state.  The  little  disguise  that  the  supposed  right 
is  to  be  exercised  only  for  just  cause,  themselves  to  be 
the  sole  judges  of  its  justice,  is  too  thin  to  merit  any 
notice. 

Having  never  been  States  either  in  substance  or  In 


GROWTH   OP   NATIONALITY.  117 

name  outside  of  the  Union  whence  this  magical  om- 
nipotence of  "State  Rights,"  asserting  a  claim  of  power 
to  lawfully  destroy  the  Union  itself?  Much  is  said 
about  the  "sovereignty"  of  the  States;  but  the  word, 
even,  is  not  in  the  National  Constitution,  nor,  as  is 
believed,  in  any  of  the  State  constitutions.  What  is 
"sovereignty"  in  the  political  sense  of  the  term? 
Would  it  be  far  wrong  to  define  it  "a  political  com- 
munity without  a  political  superior?"  Tested  by  this, 
no  one  of  our  States,  except  Texas,  ever  was  a  "sov- 
ereignty." 

By  conquest  or  purchase  the  Union  gave  each  of 
them  whatever  of  independence  or  liberty  it  has.  The 
Union  is  older  than  any  of  the  States,  and,  in  fact,  it 
created  them  as  States.  Originally  some  dependent 
colonies  made  the  Union,  and  in  turn,  the  Union  threw 
off  their  old  independence  for  them,  and  made  them 
States,  such  as  they  are. 

What  is  now  combated  is  the  position  that  secession 
is  consistent  with  the  Constitution, — is  lawful  and 
peaceful.  It  is  j^ot  contended  that  there  is  any  express 
law  for  it;  and  nothing  should  ever  be  implied  as  law 
which  leads  to  unjust  or  absurd  consequences. 

The  seceders  insist  that  our  Constitution  admits  of 
secession. 

The  principle  itself  is  one  of  disintegration,  and 
upon  which  no  government  can  possibly  endure. — 
Abraham  Lincoln,  Works,  vol.  II,  pp.  8-63. 

In  1867,  Chief  Justice  Chase,  speaking  for  the 
Supreme  Court  in  the  case  of  Texas  vs.  White, 
formulated  this  famous  description  of  the  Con- 
stitution of  the  United  States: 

The  Constitution,  in  all  its  provisions,  looks  to  an 
Indestructible  Union,  composed  of  indestructible  States. 

QUESTIONS. 

1.  What  two  views  have  been  held  in  regard  to  the 
location  of  sovereign^?  2.  What  do  you  understand 
by  sovereignty?  3.  *What  doctrine  set  forth  in  the 
Kentucky  resolutions?  4.  What  law  did  Kentucky 
hold  unconstitutional?  5.  How  did  they  regard  such 
a  law?  6.  Find  out  who  drafted  these  resolutions. 
7.  Could  the  author  of  the  Kentucky  resolutions  have 
cited  James  Wilson  to  support  his  views?  8.  How 
did  Mr.  Rawle  regard  the  Constitution?  9.  Was  Mas- 


118  AMERICAN    HISTORY    STUDIES. 

sacrmsetts,  from  1803  to  1814,  national  or  States 
Rights?  10.  Find  out  the  reason  for  its  position.  11. 
Make  an  analysis  of  the  arguments  of  Mr.  Quincy. 
12.  Find  out  why  he  was  so  opposed  to  the  West.  13. 
How  would  his  views  and  those  of  Jefferson  Davis  in 
1861  agree?  14.  What  did  he  mean  by  a  "political  com- 
pact"? 15.  Was  he  narrow  or  broad  minded?  16. 
Was  he  a  good  speaker?  17.  Point  out  strong  pas- 
sages. 18.  What  view  did  the  Hartford  convention 
take?  19.  Learn  all  you  can  of  this  convention.  20. 
Point  out  all  the  passages  you  can  find  that  show  a 
states  right  doctrine.  21.  Gather  all  the  passages 
which  prove  the  national  idea.  22.  How  do  you  ex- 
plain the  fact  that  men  could  differ  so  greatly?  23. 
Could  both  have  been  honest  in  their  beliefs?  24.  The 
position  of  what  party  surprises  you  most?  25.  Out- 
line Lincoln's  arguments.  26.  Does  he  agree  with  the 
Wisconsin  republicans  of  1859?  27.  Can  you  find  out 
the  reason  for  the  change?  28.  Commit  to  memory 
Chase's  definition  of  the  Union.  29.  Has  this  study 
made  you  any  more  tolerant  than  you  were  before? 

30.  Write  an  essay  on  the  doctrine  of  "implied  powers." 

31.  Write  one  on  the  contest  between  "states  rights" 
and  "nationality." 

ACQUISITION   OP  TERRITORY. 

Some  additional  light  is  thrown  on  the  nature 
of  the  Constitution  by  adding  the  opinions  of  a 
few  other  men  in  regard  to  the  right  to  acquire 
territory.  Jefferson,  in  1803,  said,  in  speaking 
of  the  Louisiana  purchase: 

This  treaty  must,  of  course,  be  laid  before  both 
Houses,  because  both  have  important  functions  to  ex- 
ercise respecting  it.  They,  I  presume,  will  see  their 
duty  to  their  country  in  ratifying  and  paying  for  it, 
so  as  to  secure  a  good  which  would  otherwise  probably 
be  never  again  in  their  power.  But  I  suppose  they 
must  then  appeal  to  the  nation  for  an  additional  arti- 
cle to  the  Constitution,  approving  and  confirming  an 
act  which  the  nation  had  not  previously  authorized. 
The  Constitution  has  made  no  provision  for  our  hold- 
ing foreign  territory,  still  less  for  incorporating  foreign 
nations  into  our  Union.  The  executive,  in  seizing  the 
fugitive  occurrence,  which  so  much  advances  the  good 
of  our  country,  has  done  an  act  beyond  the  Constitu- 
tion. The  legislature,  in  casting  behind  them  meta- 
physical subtleties  and  risking  themselves  like  faith- 
ful servant*,  must  ratify  and.  pay  for  it,  and  throw 


GROWTH   OF  NATIONALITY.  119 

themselves  on  their  country  for  doing  for  them  unau- 
thorized what  we  know  they  would  have  done  for  them- 
selves had  they  been  in  a  situation  to  do  it.  It  is  the 
case  of  a  guardian,  investing  the  money  of  his  ward 
in  purchasing  an  important  adjacent  territory;  and 
saying  to  him  when  of  age,  I  did  this  for  your  good; 
I  pretend  to  no  right  to  bind  you;  you  may  disavow 
me,  and  I  must  get  out  of  the  scrape  if  I  can;  I 
thought  it  my  duty  to  risk  myself  for  you.  But  we 
shall  not  be  disavowed  by  the  nation,  and  their  act  of 
indemnity  will  confirm  and  not  weaken  the  Constitu- 
tion, by  more  strongly  marked  lines. 

Our  confederation  is  certainly  confined  to  the  limits 
established  by  the  revolution.  The  general  govern- 
ment has  no  powers  but  such  as  the  Constitution  has 
given  it;  and  it  has  not  given  it  a  power  of  holding 
foreign  territory,  and  still  less  of  incorporating  it  into 
the  Union.  An  amendment  of  the  Constitution  seems 
necessary  for  this.  In  the  meantime  we  must  ratify 
and  pay  our  money,  as  we  have  treated,  for  a  thing 
beyond  the  Constitution,  and  rely  on  the  nation  to 
sanction  an  act  done  for  its  great  good,  without  its 
previous  authority. — Thomas  Jefferson,  Writings  (ed. 
1895),  vol.  VIII,  pp.  262,  512. 

Webster,  about  1830,  speaks  in  these  words: 

It  was  consistent  with  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States,  or  thought  to  be  so  in  Mr.  Jefferson's  time,  to 
attach  Louisiana  to  the  United  States.  A  treaty  with 
France  was  made  for  that  purpose.  Mr.  Jefferson's 
opinion  at  that  moment  was,  that  an  alteration  of  the 
Constitution  was  necessary  to  enable  it  to  be  done.  In 
consequence  of  considerations  to  which  I  need  not  now 
refer,  that  opinion  was  abandoned,  and  Louisiana  was 
admitted  by  law,  without  any  provision  in,  or  altera- 
tion of,  the  Constitution.  My  opinion  remains  un- 
changed, that  it  was  not  within  the  original  scope  or 
design  of  the  Constitution  to  admit  new  States  out  of 
foreign  country. — Webster,  Works,  vol.  II,  p.  551. 

QUESTIONS. 

1.  How  did  Jefferson  feel  in  regard  to  right  to  buy 
Louisiana?  2.  Why,  then,  did  he  make  the  purchase? 

3.  Would  you  expect  Webster  to  take  the  same  view? 

4.  How  do  we  regard  the  right  now?    5.  How  explain 
the  change? 


120  AMERICAN    HISTORY    STUDIES. 

ARISTOCRACY   VS.   DEMOCRACY. 

The  aristocratic  tendencies  of  a  part  of  the 
American  people  at  the  close  of  the  last  century 
is  well  illustrated  by  the  following  extracts  from 
Fisher  Ames,  the  most  eloquent  of  the  Federal- 
ists. A  few  quotations  from  Jefferson  to  show 
the  opposite  belief  must  close  this  paper. 

All  such  men  are,  or  ought  to  be,  agreed,  that  simple 
governments  are  despotisms,  and  of  all  despotisms  a 
democracy,  though  the  least  durable,  is  the  most  vio- 
lent. .  .  . 

The  known  propensity  of  a  democracy  is  to  licen- 
tiousness, which  the  ambitious  call,  and  the  ignorant 
believe,  to  be  liberty. 

The  great  object,  then,  of  political  wisdom  in  fram- 
ing our  Constitution  was  to  guard  against  licentious- 
ness, that  inbred  malady  of  democracies,  that  deforms 
their  infancy  with  gray  hairs  and  decrepitude.  .  .  . 

The  Press,  however,  has  left  the  understanding  of 
the  mass  of  men  just  where  it  found  it;  but,  by  sup- 
plying an  endless  stimulus  to  their  imagination  and 
passions,  it  has  rendered  their  temper  and  habits  in- 
finitely worse,  it  has  inspired  ignorance  with  presump- 
tion, so  that  those  who  cannot  be  governed  by  reason 
are  no  longer  awed  by  authority.  .  .  . 

While  it  has  impaired  the  force  that  every  just  gov- 
ernment can  employ  in  self-defence,  it  has  imparted 
to  its  enemies  the  result  of  that  wildfire,  that  blazes 
with  the  most  consuming  fierceness  on  attempting  to 
quench  it.  ... 

It  is  undoubtedly  a  salutary  labour  to  diffuse  among 
the  citizens  of  a  free  state,  as  far  as  the  thing  is  pos- 
sible, a  just  knowledge  of  their  publick  affairs.  But 
the  difficulty  of  this  task  is  augmented  exactly  in  pro- 
portion to  the  freedom  of  the  state;  for  the  more  the 
citizens,  the  bolder  and  more  profligate  will  be  their 
demagogues,  the  more  numerous  and  eccentrick  the 
popular  errours,  and  the  more  vehement  and  pertina- 
cious the  passions  that  defend  them. 

Yet,  as  if  there  were  neither  vice  nor  passion  in  the 
world,  one  of  the  loudest  of  our  boasts,  one  of  the  dear- 
est of  all  the  tenets  of  our  creed  is,  that  we  are  a  sov- 
ereign people — self-governed, — it  would  be  nearer  the 


GROWTH  .OF   NATIONALITY.  121 

truth  to  say,  self-conceited.  For  in  what  sense  is  it 
true,  that  any  people,  however  free,  are  self-governed? 
If  they  have  in  fact  no  government,  but  such  as  com- 
ports with  their  ever  varying  and  often  inordinate  de- 
sires, then  it  is  anarchy;  if  it  counteracts  those  desires, 
it  is  compulsory.  The  individual  who  is  left  to  act 
according  to  his  own  humour  is  not  governed  at  all; 
and  if  any  considerable  number,  and  especially  any 
combination  of  individuals,  find  or  can  place  them- 
selves in  this  situation,  then  the  society  is  no  longer 
free.  For  liberty  obviously  consists  in  the  salutary 
restraint,  and  not  in  the  uncontrolled  indulgence  of 
such  humours. 

The  republick  is  a  creature  of  fiction;  it  is  every- 
body in  fancy,  but  nobody  in  heart.  Love,  to  be  any- 
thing, must  be  select  and  exclusive. 

A  state  consisting  of  a  million  citizens  has  a  million 
sovereigns,  each  of  whom  detests  all  other  sovereigns 
but  his  own. 

Are  not  the  wandering  Tartars  or  Indian,  hunters  at 
least  as  susceptible  of  patriotism  as  these  stragglers 
in  our  Western  forests,  and  infinitely  fonder  of  glory? 
It  is  difiicult  to  conceive  of  a  country  which,  from  the 
manner  of  its  settlement  or  the  manifest  tendencies  of 
its  politicks,  is  more  destitute  or  more  incapable'  of 
being  inspired  with  political  virtue. 

Its  nature  ordains  that  its  next  change  shall  be  into 
a  military  despotism,  of  all  known  governments,  per- 
haps, the  most  prone  to  shift  its  head,  and  the  slowest 
to  mend  its  vices.  The  reason  is  that  the  tyranny  of 
what  is  called  the  people,  and  that  by  the  sword,  both 
operate  alike  to  debase  and  corrupt,  till  there  are 
neither  men  left  with  the  spirit  to  desire  liberty,  nor 
morals  with  the  power  to  sustain  justice.  Like  the 
burning  pestilence  that  destroys  the  human  body, 
nothing  can  subsist  by  its  dissolution  but  vermine.— 
Fisher  Ames,  Works,  pp.  882-419. 

Jefferson  speaks  as  follows: 

"The  basis  of  our  governments  being  the  opinion  of 
the  people,  the  very  first  object  should  be  to  keep  that 
right;  and  were  it  left  to  me  to  decide  whether  we 
should  have  a  government  without  newspapers,  or 
newspapers  without  a  government,  I  should  not  hesi- 
tate a  moment  to  prefer  the  latter.  But  I  should  mean. 


122  AMERICAN    HISTORY    STUDIES. 

f 

that  every  man  should  receive  those  papers  and  be 
capable  of  reading  them.  .  .  .  Among  [such  socie- 
ties] public  opinion  is  in  the  place  of  law,  and  restrains 
morals  as  powerfully  as  law  ever  did  anywhere.  .  .  . 
Cherish,  therefore,  the  spirit  of  our  people  and  keep 
alive  their  attention.  Do  not  be  too  severe  upon  their 
errors,  but  restrain  them  by  enlightening  them.  If 
once  they  become  inattentive  to  the  public  affairs,  you 
and  I,  and  Congress  and  Assemblies,  Judges,  and  Gov- 
ernors, shall  all  become  wolves." — To  Edw.  Carrington, 
Jan.  17,  1787.  Works,  vol.  IV  (1853  ed.J. 

"I  hold  it  that  a  little  rebellion  now  and  then  is  a 
good  thing,  and  as  necessary  in  the  political  world  as 
storms  in  the  physical.  Unsuccessful  rebellions,  in- 
deed, generally  establish  the  encroachments  on  the 
rights  of  the  people  which  have  produced  them.  An 
observation  of  this  truth  should  render  honest  repub- 
lican governors  so  mild  in  their  punishment  of  rebel- 
lions as  not  to  discourage  them  too  much.  It  is  a 
medicine  necessary  for  the  sound  health  of  govern- 
ment."—To  Madison,  Jan.  SO,  1787.  Works,  vol.  IV  (1853 
ed.J. 

QUESTIONS. 

1.  How  does  Ames  regard  the  people?  2.  What  does 
he  expect  to  become  of  democracies?  3.  How  would 
you  explain  his  feeling?  4.  Compare  his  ideas  with 
those  of  Jefferson.  5.  Did  Jefferson  fear  little  insur- 
rections? 6.  Why  not?  7.  Which  expressed  the  best 
doctrines? 


* 


American  History  Studies 


No.  6. 


FEBRUARY,  1898. 


SLAVERY  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES 

i. 


SELECTIONS  MADE  FROM  THE  SOURCES 


H.  W.  CALDWELL, 

UNIVERSITY  OF  NEBRASKA. 


J.  H.  MILLER,  Publisher, 
LINCOLN,  NEBRASKA. 


Tearly  Subscription,  40  cents.  Single  Copy,  5  cent*. 


PUBLISHED  MONTHLY,  EXCEPT  JULY  AND  AUGUST. 

Entered  as  second-class  matter  at  the  Post  Office,  Lincoln,  Nebraska, 
U.S.  A 


AMERICAN  HISTORY  STUDIES. 


SLAVERY  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES. 

some  respects  this  has  been  the  most  in- 
teresting,  as,  for  a  time,  it  was  the  most 
important,  question  in  all  American  his- 
tory. The  great  tragedy  of  the  civil  war  came 
from  it.  For  years  before  that  event  the  people 
of  the  north  and  those  of  the  south  were  unable 
to  understand  one  another.  It  may  be  that  they 
did  not  try  as  hard  as  they  might,  yet  the  en- 
vironments had  become  so  different  from  the 
existence  of  sectional  slavery  that  it  was  very 
difficult  for  the  people  to  see  things  from  the 
same  standpoints. 

It  will  not  do  to  suppose  the  civil  war  was 
wholly  due  to  slavery,  yet  that  it  furnished  the 
main  causes  I  believe  history  will  affirm. 
Neither  must  we  suppose  that  the  contest  was 
the  outcome  of  momentary  hatred,  nor  that  one 
section  can  be  held  wholly  responsible  for  its 
terrible  devastation.  The  factors  had  been  in 
process  of  formation  for  more  than  two  hundred 
years.  The  whole  history  of  the  white  race  on 
this  continent  must  be  studied  to  understand 
the  problem  thoroughly.  The  soil,  climate,  and 
resulting  industries  played  an  important  part. 
Perhaps  the  most  important  thought  for  the 
youth  of  to-day  to  grasp  is  that  the  two  sections 
were  equally  honest  in  their  views.  History,  I 
believe,  will  affirm,  nay,  has  affirmed,  that  those 
who  fought  for  the  southern  view  were  wrong, 
and  that  the  north,  in  this  case,  stood  for  pro- 
gress and  an  advancing  civilization.  However, 
we  should  recognize  that  conditions  and  cir- 


SLAVERY    IN    THE    UNITED    STATES.  125 

cumstances  to  a  great  degree  determined  belief; 
we  should  do  justice  to  the  devotion,  the  sac- 
rifices, the  courage,  and  the  brilliancy  with 
which  they  fought  for  a  mistaken  view.  It  is 
now  time  to  cement  the  bond  of  union,  to  look  to 
the  future,  to  study  the  past  for  its  lessons,  but 
not  to  taunt  nor  to  condemn. 

In  a  general  way  we  may  note,  as  it  seems  to 
me,  about  four  general  periods  in  this  history. 
From  1619  to  1774,  the  period  of  planting.  Dur- 
ing these  years  the  question  was  little  thought 
about.  Very  few  saw  the  dangers.  It  was 
not  a  political  question  at  all.  It  can  hardly 
be  said  to  have  come  into  the  field  of  ethics,  al- 
though a  few  here  and  there  began  to  question 
its  morality. 

From  1774  to  1808  there  was  a  marked  move- 
ment to  put  an  end  to  the  system.  This  force 
was  strongest  under  the  immediate  influence  of 
the  Kevolution,  and  had  almost  entirely  passed 
away  in  the  south  by  the  end  of  the  period. 
During  these  years  the  northern  states  freed 
themselves,  and  tlius  laid  the  foundation  for 
the  sectional  contest.  The  almost,  if  not  quite, 
unanimous  expression  of  opinion  during  the 
earlier,  at  least,  of  these  years  was  that  slavery 
was  an  evil  which  it  was  hoped  might  pass 
away. 

The  third  period  extended  from  1808  to  1844, 
and  was  marked  by  a  gradual  recognition  of  the 
fact  that  there  was  no  chance  for  the  system  to 
die  out  of  itself.  Gradually  there  came  to  be  a 
recognition  that  the  supposed  interests  of  the 
two  sections,  socially,  politically,  and  indus- 
trially were  opposed.  The  north  was  coming  to 
the  view  more  positively  that  the  whole  system 
was  an  evil,  and  many  came  to  believe  it  a  sin 
for  which  all  must  answer,  On  the  other  hand, 
the  south  ceased  to  be  apologists  for  its  exist- 
ence, and  finally  came  to  believe  almost  as  one 
man  that  it  was  "a  geod — a  positive  good." 


12G  AMERICAN     HISTORY    STUDIES. 

The  last  period  was  that  of  contest.  It  began 
as  a  political  issue,  and  ended  in  a  physical 
struggle  such  as  the  world  had  perhaps  never 
•  seen  before.  During  these  years  scarcely  a  fact 
in  American  politics  can  be  mentioned  which 
was  not  more  or  less  involved  with  the  question 
of  slavery. 

This  brief  outline  is  given,  not  because  it  is 
strictly  in  accordance  with  the  laboratory 
method,  but  because  in  the  brief  extracts  which 
I  can  give  not  enough  matter  can  be  presented 
to  suggest  the  classification.  A  study  cf  the 
following  extracts  may  give  something  of  a 
chance  to  test  the  truth  of  the  conclusions,  but 
they  will  hardly  be  full  enough  to  establish  their 
correctness. 

The  following  extracts  from  the  early  laws  of 
the  colonies  will  give  us  some  idea  of  the  state 
of  mind  which  must  have  been  back  of  the  laws: 

[1652,'J  And  itt  is  further  ordered  by  this  Courte  and 
the  authoritje  thereof,  that  all  Scotchmen,  Negroes, 
and  Indjans  inhabitting  with  or  servants  to  the  Eng- 
lish, from  the  age  of  sixteene  to  sixty  yeares,  shall  be 
enlisted.  .  .  . — Records  of  the  Colony  of  Mass.  Bay, 
rol.  IV,  part  I,  p.  8ti. 

[1680.]  Wm.  Seete,  Governor:  There  are  but  fewe 
servants  amongst  us,  and  less  slaves,  not  above  30,  as 
we  judge,  in  the  Colony. — Colonial  Records  of  Connccti- 
nitt,  lfftS-1689,  p.  298. 

[1723.]  Be  it  enacted  ...  if  any  negro  or  Indian 
servant  or  slave  shall  be  found  abroad  from  home  in 
the  night  season,  after  nine  of  the  clock,  without 
special  order  from  his  or  their  master  or  mistress,  it 
shall  be  lawful  for  any  person  or  persons  to  apprehend 
and  secure  such  negro  or  Indian  servant  or  slave  so 
offending,  and  him  or  them  bring  before  the  next 
assistant  or  justice  of  peace. — Ibid,  1717-172-5,  p.  890. 

[1681.  Proposals  for  the  carrying  on  of  the  Negroe'3 
Christianity.]  Now  concerning  the  Negroe's,  .  .  . 
The  first  and  great  step  will  be  to  procure  .  .  . 
their  Owners  consent,  as  being  supposed  to  be  averse 
thereto:  not  altogether,  as  is  here  believed,  out  of 


SLAVERY    IN    THE    UNITED    STATES.  127 

Interest  .  .  .  ;  but  by  reason  of  the  trouble,  and 
the  fancied  needlessness  of  the  Work;  and  to  prevent 
all  danger  from  their  slaves  being  furnishf  with 
knowledge,  consequent,  they  conceive  thereto.-^ffarf, 
American  History  Told  by  Contemporaries,  vol.  I,  p.  299. 

.  .  .  Be  it  hereby  further  Declared  and  Enacted, 
by  and  with  the  Authority,  Advice,  and  Consent  afore- 
said, That  no  Negro  or  Negroes,  by  receiving  the  Holy 
Sacrament  of  Baptism,  is  thereby  manumitted  or  set 
free,  nor  hath  any  Right  or  Title  to  Freedom  or  Manu-  <£ 

mission,  more  than  he  or  they  had  before;  any  Law, 
Usage,  or  Custom  to  the  contrary  notwithstanding. — 
Hening's  Statutes  of  Virginia,  1715,  ch.  44>  sec.  24. 

Be  it  further  Enacted,  .  .  .  That  for  every  Negro 
imported  into  this  Province,  either  by  Land  or 
Water,  the  Importer  or  Importers  of  such  Negro  or 
Negroes  shall  pay  unto  the  said  Naval  Officer  afore- 
said, the  Sum  of  Twenty  Shillings  Sterling  per  Poll 
.  .  .— Ibid,  1715,  ch.  86,  sec.  8. 

Be  it  therefore   Enacted That  from  and 

after  the  End  of  this  present  Session  of  Assembly,  No 
Negro,  or  Mulatto  Slave,  Free  Negro,  or  Mulatto  born 
of  a  White  Woman,  during  his  Time  of  Servitude  by 
Law,  or  any  Indian  Slave,  or  Free  Indian  Natives  of 
this  or  the  neighboring  Provinces,  be  admitted  and 
received  as  good  and  valid  Evidence  in  Law,  in  any 

Matter  or  Thing  whatsoever wherein  any 

Christian  White  Person  is  concerned. — Ibid,  1717,  ch. 
IS,  sec.  2. 

[1765.]    Be  it  Enacted That  the  Justices  of 

the  several  and  respective  County  Courts  within  this 
Province,  be,  and  they  are  hereby  impowered  and  re- 
quired, .  .  .  ,  to  appoint  the  Constable  of  every 
Hundred,  where  the  said  Justices,  at  their  Discretion, 
shall  think  proper  and  expedient,  to  suppress  the  As- 
sembling and  tumultuous  Meeting  of  Negroes  and  other 
Slaves;  .  .  . — Hening,  Statutes  of  Virginia. 

[1725.]  XI.  And  be  it  enacted  by  the  Authority 
aforesaid,  That  no  Master  or  Mistress  of  any  Negroe 
shall  hereafter,  for  any  Reward,  Sum  or  Sums  of 
Money,  stipulated  and  agreed  upon  betwixt  them,  or 
upon  any  Pretence  whatsoever,  permit  or  suffer  his  or 
their  Negroes  to  ramble  about,  under  Pretence  of  get- 
ting Work,  nor  give  Liberty  to  their  Negroes  to  seek 


128  AMERICAN    HISTORY    STUDIES. 

their  own  Employ,  and  so  go  to  work  at  their  own 
Wills,  under  the  Penalty  of  Twenty  Shillings  for  every 
such  Offence. — Acts  of  Pennsylvania. 

[1792.]  V.  No  negro  or  mulatto  shall  be  a  witness, 
except  in  pleas  of  the  Commonwealth  against  negroes 
or  mulattoes,  or  in  civil  pleas,  where  negroes  or  mulat- 
toes  alone  shall  be  parties. 

VI.  No  slave  shall  go  from  the  tenements  of  his  mas- 
ter or  other  person  with  whom  he  lives,  without  a  pass, 
or  some  letter  or  token,  whereby  it  may  appear  that  he 
is  proceeding  by  authority  from  his  master,  employer, 
or  overseer.  .  .  . 

XI.  Riots,  routs,  unlawful  assemblies,  trespasses  and 
seditious  speeches  by  a  slave  or  slaves,  shall  be  pun- 
ished by  stripes  .  .  . — Acts  of  the  Genei-al  Assembly  of 
Pennsylvania,  Printed  by  A.  Davis,  1794,  PP-  196, 197. 

[1793.]  II.  Be  it  enacted  by  the  General  Assembly, 
That  from  and  after  the  passing  of  this  act,  every  free 
negro  or  mulatto,  who  resides  in,  or  is  employed  to 
labour  within  the  limits  of  any  city,  borough,  or  town, 
shall  be  registered  and  numbered  in  a  book  to  be  kept 
for  that  purpose  by  the  clerk  of  the  said  city,  borough, 
or  town,  which  register  shall  specify  his  or  her  age, 
name,  colour  and  stature,  by  whom,  and  in  what  court 
the  said  negro  or  mulatto  was  emancipated,  or  that 
such  negro  or  mulatto  was  born  free. — Ibid,  p.  327. 

[1687,  New  York.]  .  .  .  This  I  observe  that  they 
take  no  care  of  the  conversion  of  their  Slaves. — Hart, 
vol.  I,  p.  54S. 

[1650,  New  York.]  There  are,  also,  various  other 
negroes  in  this  country,  some  of  whom  have  been 
made  free  for  their  long  service,  but  their  children  have 
remained  slaves,  though  it  is  contrary  to  the  laws  of 
every  people  that  anyone  born  of  a  Christian  mother 
should  be  a  slave  ^nd  be  compelled  to  remain  in  servi- 
tude.— Ibid,  p.  555. 

[Rev.  John  McDowell  said  In  1762  concerning  North 
.Carolina]:  We  have  but  few  families  in  this  parish, 
but  of  the  best  in  the  province,  viz.,  His  Excellency  the 
Governor,  His  Honor  the  President,  some  of  the  honor- 
able Council,  Col.  Dry,  the  Collector,  and  about  20 
other  good  families,  who  have  each  of  them  great 
gangs  of  slaves.  We  have  in  all  about  200  families. — 
Cited  in  J.  H.  U.  Studies,  1896,  p.  193. 


SLAVERY    IN    THE    UNITED    STATES.  129 

Every    freeman    of    Carolina    shall    have    absolute     "~J 
power  and  authority  over  negro  slaves  of  what  opin- 
ion and  religion  whatsoever. — Ibid,  p.  27. 

Be  it  further  enacted,  That  if  any  master,  or  owner 
of  negroes,  or  slaves,  or  any  other  person  or  persons 
whatsoever  in  the  government  shall  permit  or  suffer 
any  negro  or  negroes  to  build  on  their  or  either  of 
their  lands  or  any  part  thereof  any  house  under  pre- 
tense of  a  meeting  house  upon  account  of  worship  or 
upon  any  pretense  whatsoever,  and  shall  not  suppress 
and  hinder  them,  he,  she,  or  they  so  offending  shall 
for  every  default  forfeit  or  pay  fifty  pounds,  one-half 
towards  defraying  the  contingent  charges  of  the  gov- 
ernment, the  other  to  him  or  them  that  shall  sue  for 
the  same.—  Ibid,  p.  50. 

That  there  were  those  during  these  years  who 
held  different  views  from  those  manifested  in 
these  laws  may  be  seen  from  the  following  ex- 
tracts. JONATHAN  EDWARDS  the  younger  said: 

"To  hold  a  man  in  a  state  of  slavery,  is  to  be,  every 
day,  guilty  of  robbing  him  of  his  liberty,  or  of  man 
stealing." — Cited  in  Goodell,  Slavery  and  Anti-Slavery, 
p.  28. 

The  town  meeting  of  Danbury,  Connecticut, 
in  1774,  passed  the  following  resolution: 

"We  cannot  but  think  it  a  palpable  absurdity  so 
loudly  to  complain  of  attempts  to  Enslave  us  while  we 
are  actually  Enslaving  others." — American  Archives, 
vol.  I,  p.  1038. 

The  Friends,  in  their  annual  meetings,  give 
us  their  views  in  the  following  resolutions: 

[1696,  Advised  the  members  to]   be  careful   not  to      . — . 
encourage  the  bringing  in  of  any  more  negroes,  and         / 
that  those  who  have  negroes  be  careful  of  them,  bring        / 
them  to  meetings,  have  meetings  with  them  in  their 
families,  restrain  them  from  loose  and  lewd  living,  as      O 
much  as  in  them  lies,  and  from  rambling  abroad,  on 
First  days  or  other  times. 

[1774.]  All  members  concerned  in  importing,  sell- 
ing, purchasing,  giving  or  transferring  negroes  or 


130  AMERICAN    HISTORY    STUDIES. 

other  slaves,  or  otherwise  acting  in  such  a  manner  as 
to  continue  them  in  slavery  beyond  the  term  limited 
by  law  or  custom  [for  whites]  was  directed  to  be  ex- 
cluded fr.  membership  or  disowned. 

[1776.]  It  was  enacted  by  the  same  meeting  That 
the  owners  of  slaves,  who  refused  to  execute  proper  in- 
struments for  giving  them  their  freedom,  were  to  be 
disowned  likewise. — Goodell,  pp.  35,  S6. 

In  the  Virginia  convention  of  1774  to  choose 
delegates  to  the  Philadelphia  convention,  Jeffer- 
son laid  before  it  an  exposition  of  the  rights  of 
British  America.  A  part  was  as  follows: 

The  abolition  of  domestic  slavery  is  the  great  object 
of  desire  in  those  colonies  where  it  was  unhappily 
introduced  in  their  infant  state.  But  previous  to  the 
enfranchisement  of  the  slaves,  it  is  necessary  to  ex- 
clude all  further  importations  from  Africa;  Yet  our 
repeated  attempts  to  effect  this  by  prohibitions,  and 
by  imposing  duties  which  might  amount  to  a  prohibi- 
tion, have  been  hitherto  defeated  by  his  Majesty's 
negative;  Thus  preferring  the  immediate  advantage 
of  a  few  African  [British]  corsairs,  to  the  lasting  in- 
terests of  the  American  States,  and  to  the  rights  of 
human  nature  deeply  wounded  by  this  infamous  prac- 
tice.— Jefferson,  Works,  vol.  I  (Ford),  p.  440. 

The  convention  actually 

Resolved,  We  will  neither  ourselves  import  nor  pur- 
chase any  slave  or  slaves  imported  by  any  other  per- 
son after  the  1st  day  of  November  next  [1774],  either 
from  Africa,  the  W.  Indies,  or  any  other  place. — 76.,  p. 
687. 

The  North  Carolina  Provincial  Convention  of 
the  same  year 

Resolved,  That  we  will  not  import  any  slave  or 
slaves,  or  purchase  any  slave  or  slaves  imported  or 
brought  into  the  province  by  others,  from  any  part 
of  the  world  after  the  first  day  of  Nov.  next. — /&.,  p. 
735. 

The  first  General  Congress,  in  1774,  passed  the 
following  Articles  of  Association: 
We  do,  for  ourselves  and  the  inhabitants  of  the  sev- 


SLAVERY    IN    THE    UNITED    STATES.  131 

eral   Colonies  whom   we  represent,   firmly  agree   and 
associate,  as  follows:     .     .    . 

2.  We  will  neither  import  nor  purchase,  any  slave 
imported  after  the  first  day  of  December  next;  after 
which  time,  we  will  wholly  discontinue  the  slave  trade, 
and  will  neither  be  concerned  in  it  ourselves,  nor  will 
we  hire  our  vessels,  nor  sell  our  commodities  or  manu- 
factures, to  those  who  are  concerned  in  it. 

11.  That  a  committee  be  chosen  in  every  county, 
city,  and  town,  by  those  who  are  qualified  to  vote  for 
representatives  in  the  legislature,  whose  business  it 
shall  be  attentively  to  observe  the  conduct  of  all  per- 
sons touching  this  association;  and  when  it  shall  be 
made  to  appear,  to  the  satisfaction  of  a  majority  of 
any  such  committee,  that  any  person  within  the  limits 
of  their  appointment  has  violated  this  association,  that 
such  majority  do  forthwith  cause  the  truth  of  the  case 
to  be  published  in  the  gazette;  to  the  end,  that  all  such 
foes  to  the  rights  of  British-America  may  be  publicly 
known  and  universally  contemned  as  the  enemies  of 
American  liberty;  and  thenceforth  we  respectively  will 
break  off  all  dealings  with  him  or  her. 

14.  And  we  do  further  agree  and  resolve  that  we 
will  have  no  trade,  commerce,  dealings  or  intercourse 
whatsoever,  with  any  colony  or  province,  in  N.  Amer., 
which  shall  not  accede  to  or  who  shall  hereafter  vio- 
late this  association,  but  will  hold  them  as  unworthy 
of  the  rights  of  freemen  and  as  inimical  to  the  liber- 
ties of  this  country. — Journal  of  Congress,  vol.  I,  23  f. 

The  representatives  of  the  Darien  district,  in 
Georgia,  in  1775,  resolved: 

"To  show  the  world  that  we  are  not  influenced  by 
any  contracted  or  interested  motives,  but  a  general 
philanthropy  for  all  mankind,  of  whatever  climate, 
language,  or  complexion,  we  hereby  declare  our  dis- 
approbation and  abhorrence  of  the  unnatural  practice 
of  slavery  in  America  (however  the  uncultivated  state 
of  our  country,  or  other  specious  arguments  may  plead 
for  it,)  a  practice  founded  in  injustice  and  cruelty, 
and  highly  dangerous  to  our  liberties  (as  well  as  lives,) 


132  AMERICAN    HISTORY    STUDIES. 

debasing  part  of  our  fellow-creatures  below  men,  and 
corrupting  the  virtue  and  morals  of  rest,  and  is  laying 
the  basis  of  that  liberty  we  contend  for,  (and  which 
we  pray  the  Almighty  to  continue  to  the  latest  pos- 
terity,) upon  a  very  wrong  foundation.  We,  there- 
fore, Resolve,  at  all  times  to  use  our  utmost  endeavors 
for  the  manumission  of  our  slaves  in  this  colony,  upon 
the  most  safe  and  equitable  footing  for  the  master  and 
themselves." — Am.  Archives,  vol.  I,  p.  1136. 

The  Declaration  of  Independence  as  originally 
drafted  contained  the  following  clause: 

he  has  waged  cruel  war  against  human  nature  itself, 
violating  it's  most  sacred  rights  of  life  &  liberty  in  the 
persons  of  a  distant  people  who  never  offended  him, 
captivating  &  carrying  them  into  slavery  in  another 
hemisphere,  or  to  incur  miserable  death  in  their  trans- 
portation thither,  this  piratical  warfare,  the  oppro- 
brium of  infidel  powers,  is  the  warfare  of  the  Christian 
king  of  Great  Britain  determined  to  keep  open  a  mar- 
ket where  MEN  should  be  bought  &  sold  he  has  prosti- 
tuted his  negative  for  suppressing  every  legislative 
attempt  to  prohibit  or  to  restrain  this  execrable  com- 
merce: and  that  this  assemblage  of  horrors  might 
want  no  fact  of  distinguished  die,  he  is  now  exciting 
those  very  people  to  rise  in  arms  among  us,  and  to 
purchase  that  liberty  of  which  he  has  deprived  them, 
by  murdering  the  people  upon  whom  he  also  obtruded 
them:  thus  paying  off  former  crimes  committed 
against  the  liberties  of  one  people,  with  crimes  which 
he  urges  them  to  commit  against  the  lives  of  another. 
— Jefferson,  Works,  vol.  II  (Ford),  p.  51,  Facsimile. 

Jefferson's  draft  of  the  Ordinance  of  1784  for 
the  government  of  the  territories  of  the  United 
States  contained  this  clause  in  relation  to  slav- 
ery: 

After  the  year  1800  of  the  Christian  era  there  shall 
be  neither  slavery  nor  involuntary  Servitude  in  any 
of  the  said  States,  otherwise  than  in  punishment  of 
crimes  whereof  the  party  shall  have  been  convicted 
to  be  personally  guilty. 

The  Ordinance  of  1787,  which  provided  for  the 


—N 


I  SLAVERY    IN   THE    UNITED    STATES.  133 

government  of  the  northwest  territory,  had  this 
provision  in  regard  to  the  subject  under  con- 
sideration : 

Art.  VI.  There  shall  be  neither  slavery  nor  involun- 
tary servitude  in  the  said  territory,  otherwise  than  in 
punishment  of  crimes  whereof  the  party  shall  have 
been  duly  convicted;  .  .  . 

JEFFERSON,  in  his  "Notes  on  Virginia,"  in 
1782,  discusses  the  subject  as  follows: 

"There  must  doubtless  be  an  unhappy  influence  on 
the  manners  of  our  people  produced  by  the  existence 
of  slavery  among  us.  The  whole  commerce  between 
master  and  slave  is  a  perpetual  exercise  of  the  most 
boisterous  passions,  the  most  unremitting  despotism, 
on  the  one  part,  and  degrading  submissions  on  the  «»^ 
other.  Our  children  see  this,  and  learn  to  imitate  it; 
for  man  is  an  imitative  animal.  ...  If  a  parent 
could  find  no  motive  either  in  his  philanthropy  or  his 
self-love  for  restraining  the  intemperance  of  passion 
towards  his  slave,  it  should  always  be  a  sufficient  one 
that  his  child  is  present.  But  generally  it  is  not  suf- 
ficient. The  parent  storms,  the  child  looks  on,  catches 
the  lineaments  of  wrath,  puts  on  the  same  airs  in  the 
circle  of  smaller  slaves,  gives  a  loose  to  the  worst  of 
passions,  and  thus  nursed,  educated,  and  daily  ex- 
ercised in  tyranny,  cannot  but  be  stamped  by  it 
with  odious  peculiarities.  The  man  must  be  a  prodigy 
who  can  retain  his  manners  and  morals  undepraved 
by  such  circumstances.  And  with  what  execration 
should  the  statesman  be  loaded,  who,  permitting  one- 
half  of  the  citizens  thus  to  trample  on  the  rights  of 
the  other,  transforms  those  into  despots,  and  these 
into  enemies,  destroys  the  morals  of  the  one  and  the 
amor  patrice  of  the  other!  .  .  With  the  morals 
of  the  people  their  industry  also  is  destroyed.  .  .  . 
And  can  the  liberties  of  a  nation  be  '.bought  secure, 
when  we  have  removed  their  only  firm  basis,  a  con- 
viction in  the  minds  of  the  people  that  these  liberties 
are  of  the  gift  of  God?  That  they  are  not  to  be  vio- 
lated but  with  His  wrath?  Indeed,  I  tremble  for  my 
country  when  I  reflect  that  God  is  just;  that  His  jus- 
tice cannot  sleep  forever;  that  considering  numbers, 


134  AMERICAN    HISTORY    STUDIES. 

nature,  and  natural  means  only,  a  revolution  of  the 
wheel  of  Fortune,  an  exchange  of  situation,  is  among 
possible  events;  that  it  may  become  probable  by 
supernatural  interference!  The  Almighty  has  no  at- 
tribute which  can  take  side  with  us  in  such  a  contest." 
— Works,  vol.  Ill  (Ford),  pp.  266-7. 

The  following  tetters  from  Jefferson  will  show 
how  he  felt  in  regard  to  the  institution  of  slav- 
ery: 

To  DR.  PRICE,  encouraging  him  and  praising 
the  spirit  of  a  pamphlet  against  slavery,  1785: 

Southward  of  the  Chesapeak  it  will  find  but  few 
readers  concurring  with  it  in  sentiment  on  the  sub- 
ject of  slavery.  From  the  mouth  to  the  head  of  the 
Chesapeak,  the,  bulk  of  the  people  will  approve  it  in 
•  theory,  and  it  will  find  a  reputable  minority  ready  to 
accept  it  in  practice,  a  minority  which  for  weight  and 
worth  of  character  preponderates  against  the  greatest 
number,  who  have  not  the  courage  to  divest  their 
families  of  a  property  which  however  keeps  their  con- 
science unquiet.  Northward  of  the  Chesapeak  you 
may  find  here  and  there  an  opponent  to  your  doctrine 
or  you  may  find  here  and  there  a  robber  and  a  mur- 
derer, but  in  no  greater  number.  ...  In  a  few 
years  there  will  be  no  slaves  Northward  of  Maryland. 
In  Maryland  I  do  not  find  such  a  disposition  to  begin 
the  redress  of  this  enormity  as  in  Virginia.  This  is 
the  next  state  to  which  we  may  turn  our  eyes  for  the 
interesting  spectacle  of  justice  in  conflict  with  avarice 
and  oppression. — Works,  vol.  IV  (Ford),  pp.  82-8. 

To  M.  DE  MEUSTIER,  January  24,  1786: 
I  conjecture  there  are  650,000  negroes  in  the  5  South- 
ernmost states,  and  not  50,000  in  the  rest.  In  most  of 
these  latter  effectual  measures  have  been  taken  for 
their  future  emancipation.  In  the  former,  nothing  is 
done  toward  that.  The  disposition  to  emancipate  them 
is  strongest  in  Virginia.  Those  who  desire  it,  form, 
as  yet,  the  minority  of  the  whole  state,  but  it  bears  a 
respectable  proportion  to  the  whole  in  numbers  and 
weight  of  character,  and  is  continually  recruiting  by 
the  addition  of  nearly  the  whole  of  the  young  men 
as  fast  as  they  come  into  public  life.  I  flatter  myself 


SLAVERY    IN    THE    UNITED    STATES.  135 

it  will  take  place  there  at  some  period  of  time  not  very 
distant.  In  Maryland  and  N.  Carolina  a  very  few  are 
disposed  to  emancipate.  In  S.  Carolina  and  Georgia 
not  the  smallest  symptoms  of  it,  but,  on  the  contrary 
these  2  states  and  N.  Carolina  continue  importations 
of  negroes. — Ibid,  pp.  l.'t5-6. 

To  M.  DE  MEUSTIER,  1786: 

What  a  stupendous,  what  an  incomprehensible  ma- 
chine! Who  can  endure  toil,  famine,  stripes,  impris- 
onment and  death  itself  in  vindication  of  his  own  lib- 
erty, and  the  next  moment  be  deaf  to  all  those 
motives  whose  power  supported  him  thro'  his  trial,  and 
inflict  on  his  fellow  men  a  bondage,  one  hour  of  which 
is  fraught  with  more  misery  than  ages  of  that  which 
he  rose  in  rebellion  to  oppose.  But  we  must  await 
with  patience  the  workings  of  an  overruling  provi- 
dence. I  hope  that  that'is  preparing  the  deliverance 
of  these,  our  suffering  brethren.  When  the  measure 
of  their  tears  shall  be  full,  when  their  groans  shall 
have  involved  heaven  itself  in  darkness,  doubtless  a 
God  of  justice  will  awaken  to  their  distress,  and  by 
diffusing  light  and  liberality  among  their  oppressors, 
or  at  length  by  his  exterminating  thunder,  manifest 
his  attention  to  the  things  of  this  world,  and  that  they 
are  not  left  to  the  guidance  of  a  blind  fatality."— Ibid, 
p.  185. 

To  ST.  GEORGE  TUCKER,  August  28,  1797, 
[subscribes  to  emancipation],  and  to  the  mode  of 
emancipation,  I  am  satisfied  that  that  must  be  a  mat- 
ter of  compromise  between  the  passions,  the  preju- 
dices, and  the  real  difficulties  which  will  each  have 
their  weight  in  that  operation.  Perhaps  the  first  chap- 
ter of  this  history,  which  has  begun  in  St.  Domingo 
.  .  .  may  prepare  our  minds  for  a  peaceable  ac- 
comodation  between  justice,  policy  and  necessity;  and 
furnish  an  answer  to  the  difficult  question,  whither 
shall  the  colored  emigrants  go?  and  the  sooner  we 
put  some  plan  underway,  the  greater  hope  there  is 
that  it  may  be  permitted  to  proceed  peaceably  to  It's 
ultimate  effect.  But  if  something  is  not  done  and  soon 
done,  we  shall  be  the  murderers  of  our  own  children.— - 
Ibid,  vol.  VII,  pp.  167-8. 


136  AMERICAN    HISTORY    STUDIES. 

To  EDWARD  COLES,  1814: 

[His  views]  have  long  since  been  in  possession  of 
the  public,  and  time  has  only  served  to  give  them 
stronger  proof.  The  love  of  justice  and  the  love  of 
country  plead  equally  the  cause  of  these  people,  and 
it  is  a  mortal  reproach  to  us  that  they  should  have 
pleaded  so  long  in  vain.  .  .  .  The  hour  of  emanci- 
pation is  advancing  in  the  march  of  time.  It  will  come 
and  whether  brought  on  by  the  generous  energy  of 
our  own  minds  or  by  the  bloody  process  of  St.  Do- 
mingo ...  is  a  leaf  in  our  history  not  yet  turned 
over.  ...  I  have  seen  no  proposition  so  expedient, 
on  the  whole,  as  that  of  emancipation  of  those  born 
after  a  given  day.  .  .  .  This  enterprise  .  .  . 
shall  have  all  my  prayers. 

Washington  speaks  in  no  uncertain  words  in 
regard  to  his  desires  and  intentions: 
To  ROBT.  MORRIS,  April  12,  1786: 

I  can  only  say  that  there  is  not  a  man  living  who 
wishes  more  sincerely  than  I  do  to  see  a  plan  adopted 
for  the  abolition  of  it  [slavery] ;  but  there  is  only  one 
proper  and  effectual  mode  in  which  it  can  be  accom- 
plished, and  that  is  by  legislative  authority;  and  this, 
so  far  as  my  suffrage  will  go,  shall  never  be  wanting. — 
Works,  vol.  IX  (Sparks),  p.  158. 

To  JOHN  F.  MERCER,  September  9,  1786 : 

I  never  mean,  unless  some  particular  circumstances 
should  compel  me  to  it,  to  possess  another  slave  by 
purchase,  it  being  among  my  first  wishes  to  see  some 
plan  adopted,  by  which  slavery  in  this  country  may  be 
abolished  by  law. — Ib.,  p.  — . 

Washington,  by  his  will,  freed  all  his  slaves. 
WILLIAM  PINCKNEY,   in  Maryland  House  of 
Delegates,  1789,  says: 

Iniquitous  and  most  dishonorable  to  Maryland,  is 
that  dreary  system  of  partial  bondage  which  her  laws 
have  hitherto  supported  with  a  solicitude  worthy  of 
a  better  object  and  her  citizens,  by  their  practice, 
countenanced.  Founded  In  a  disgraceful  traffic,  to 
which  the  present  country  lent  its  fostering  aid,  from 


SLAVERY    IN   THH    UNITED    STATES.  137 

motives  of  interest,  but  which,  even  she  would  have  dis- 
dained to  encourage,  had  England  been  the  destined 
mart  of  such  inhuman  merchandize,  its  continuance  is 
as  shameful  as  its  origin. — Elliot's  Debates,  vol.  — ,  p.  — . 

JOHN  JAY  says: 

Till  America  comes  into  this  measure  [abolition] 
her  progress  to  Heaven  will  be  impious.  This  is  a 
strong  expression  but  it  is  just.  I  believe  that  God 
is  just,  and  I  believe  it  to  be  a  maxim  in  His,  as  in 
other  courts,  that  those  who  ask  equity  ought  to  do  it. 
—Letter  from  Spain,  1780,  Goodell,  p.  30. 

THE    SLAVE    COMPROMISES    IN    THE    CONSTITUTION. 

Representatives  and  direct  Taxes  shall  be  appor- 
tioned among  the  several  States  which  may  be  in- 
cluded within  this  Union,  according  to  their  respective 
numbers,  which  shall  be  determined  by  adding  to  the 
whole  Number  of  free  Persons,  including  those  bound 
to  Service  for  a  Term  of  Years,  .  .  .  three-fifth 
of  all  other  Persons. — The  Constitution,  art.  I,  sec.  2, 
cl.  S. 

On  the  above  article  of  the  Constitution  a  long 
debate  took  place  in  the  Constitutional  Conven- 
tion. Various  opinions  in  regard  to  its  merits 
were  expressed  by  the  members  of  the  conven- 
tion. The  following  extracts  will  well  illustrate 
the  general  trend  of  the  debate. 

GERR*  (MASS.):  Why  should  the  blacks,  who  were 
property  in  the  South,  be  in  the  rule  of  representation 
more  than  the  cattle  and  horses  in  the  North? 

PINCKNEY  (S.  C.):  .  .  .  He  thought  the  blacks 
ought  to  stand  on  an  equality  with  the  whites;  but 
would  agree  to  the  ratio  settled  by  Congress. 

BUTLEB  (S.  C.)  insisted  that  the  labor  of  a  slave  in 
South  Carolina  was  as  productive  and  valuable  as  that 
of  a  free  man  in  Massachusetts;  that  as  wealth  was  the 
great  means  of  defence  and  utility  to  the  nation,  they 
were  equally  valuable  to  it  with  freemen;  and  that 
consequently  an  equal  representation  ought  to  be  al- 
lowed for  them  in  a  government  which  was  instituted 
principally  for  the  protection  of  property,  and  was 
itself  to  be  supported  by  properly. 


138  AMERICAN    HISTORY    STUDIES. 

WILSON  (PA.)  did  not  well  see  on  what  principle  the 
admission  of  blacks  in  the  proportion  of  three-fifths 
could  be  explained.  Are  they  admitted  as  citizens — 
then  why  not  admitted  on  an  equality  with  white 
citizens?  Are  they  admitted  as  property— then  why 
not  all  other  property?  .  .  . 

RANDOLPH  (VA.) :  He  urged  strenuously  that  express 
security  ought  to  be  provided  for  including  slaves  in 
the  ratio  of  representation.  He  lamented  that  such  a 
species  of  property  existed.  But  as  it  did  exist,  the 
holders  of  it  would  require  this  security.  It  was  per- 
ceived that  the  design  was  entertained  by  some  of  ex- 
cluding slaves  altogether;  the  Legislature  therefore 
ought  not  to  be  left  at  liberty. 

PINCKNEY  (S.  C.)  reminded  the  committee  that  if  the. 
convention  should  fail  to  insert  some  security  to  the 
Southern  States  against  an  emancipation  of  slaves, 
...  he  should  be  bound  by  duty  to  his  state  to  vote 
against  their  report. 

ROGER  SHERMAN  (CONN.)  did  not  regard  the  admis- 
sion of  the  negroes  into  the  ratio  of  representation,  as 
liable  to  such  insuperable  objections.  It  was  the  free- 
men of  the  Southern  States  who  were,  in  fact,  to  be 
represented  according  to  the  taxes  paid  by  them,  and 
the  negroes  are  only  included  in  the  estimate  of  the 
taxes.  .  .  . — The  Madison  Papers,  pp.  l^S,  302,  S24, 
332,  336,  418,  480. 

The  Migration  or  Importation  of  such  Persons  as 
any  of  the  States  now  existing  shall  think  proper  to 
admit,  shall  not  be  prohibited  by  the  'Congress  prioi1 
to  the  Year  one  thousand  eight  hundred  and  eight,  but 
a  Tax  or  duty  may  be  imposed  on  such  Importation, 
not  exceeding  ten  dollars  for  each  Person. — The  Con- 
stitution, art.  I,  sec.  9,  cl.  1. 

On  this  clause  again  a  long  debate  ensued: 

RUTLEDGE  (S.  C.):  .  .  .  Religion  and  humanity 
had  nothing  to  do  with  this  question.  Interest  alone  is 
the  governing  principle  with  nations.  The  true  ques- 
tion at  present  is,  whether  the  Southern  States  shall 
or  shall  not  be  parties  to  the  Union.  If  the  Northern 
States  consult  their  interest,  they  will  not  oppose  the 
increase  of  Slaves,  which  will  increase  the  commodi- 
ties of  which  they  will  have  become  the  carriers. 


SLAVERY    IN    THE    UNITED    STATES.  139 

ELLSWORTH  (CONN.)  was  for  leaving  the  clause  as  it 
stands.  Let  every  State  import  what  it  pleases.  The 
morality  or  wisdom  of  slavery  are  considerations  be- 
longing to  the  States  themselves.  What  enriches  a 
part  enriches  the  whole,  and  the  States  are  the  best 
judges  of  their  particular  interests. 

PINCKNEY  (S.  C.):  South  Carolina  can  never  receive 
the  plan  if  it  prohibits  the  slave  trade. 

SHERMAN  (CONN.):  He  disapproved  of  the  slave 
trade,  yet  as  the  States  were  now  possessed  of  the 
right  to  import  slaves,  and  as  the  public  good  did  not 
require  it  to  be  taken  from  them  ...  he  thought 
it  best  to  leave  the  matter  as  we  find  it.  He  observed 
that  the  abolition  of  slavery  seemed  to  be  going  on  in 
the  United  States,  and  that  the  good  sense  of  the  sev- 
eral States  would  probably  by  degrees  complete  it,  .  . 

MASON  (VA.):  This  infamous  traffic  originated  in 
the  avarice  of  British  merchants.  .  .  .  The  evil  of 
having  slaves  was  experienced  during  the  late  war, 
.  .  .  Maryland  and  Virginia  had  already  prohibited 
the  importation  of  slaves.  .  .  .  All  this  would  be 
in  vain,  if  South  Carolina  and  Georgia  be  at  liberty  to 
import.  .  .  .  The  Western  people  are  already  call- 
ing out  for  slaves  for  their  new  lands;  and  will  fill 
that  country  with  slaves,  if  they  can  be  got  through 
South  Carolina  and  Georgia,  .  .  . 

BALDWIN  (GA.):  .  .  .  Georgia  could  not  give  up 
this  one  of  her  favorite  prerogatives.  If  left  to  herself 
she  may  probably  put  a  stop  to  the  evil.  .  .  . 

WILLIAMSON  (N.  C.):  .  .  He  thought  the  Southern 
States  could  not  be  members  of  the  Union  if  the  clause* 
should  be  rejected. 

KING  (MASS.):  If  Southern  States  would  not  con- 
federate with  the  tax  on  slaves  imported,  so  he  thought 
Northern  would  not  if  this  clause  were  omitted. 

RTJTLEDGE  (S.  C.):  If  the  convention  thinks  North 
Carolina,  South  Carolina  and  Georgia  will  ever  agree 
to  the  plan,  unless  their  right  to  import  be  untouched, 
the  expectation  is  vain.  The  people  of  those  States 
will  never  be  such  fools  as  to  give  up  so  important  an 
interest. 

MADISON  (VA.):  Twenty  years  will  produce  all  the 
mischief  that  can  be  apprehended  from  the  liberty  to 
import  slaves.  So  long  a  time  will  be  more  dishonors 


140  AMERICAN    HISTORY    STUDIES. 

ble  to  the  American  character  than  to  say  nothing 
about  it  in  the  constitution.    .    .    . 

He  thought  it  wrong  to  admit  in  the  constitution  the 
idea  that  there  could  be  property  in  men. — The  Madison 
Papers,  pp.  577,  578,  581,  582,  608,  610. 

A  few  extracts  from  speeches  made  in  the 
State  conventions  to  consider  the  adoption  of 
the  constitution  throw  still  more  light  on  the 
views  prevailing  at  the  time. 

JAS.  WILSON  (Pa.): 

I  consider  this  clause  as  laying  the  foundation  for 
banishing  slavery  out  of  this  country;  and  though  the 
period  is  more  distant  than  I  could  wish  it,  it  will  pro- 
duce the  same  kind,  gradual  change  as  was  produced 
in  Pennsylvania.  .  .  .  The  new  States  which  are  to 
be  formed  will  be  under  the  control  of  Congress  in  this 
particular,  and  slavery  will  never  be  introduced 
among  them. — Elliot's  Debates,  vol.  II,  p.  452. 

GEN.  HEATH  (Mass.): 

The  migration  or  importation,  etc.,  is  confined  to 
the  States  now  existing  only;  new  States  cannot  claim 
it.  Congress  by  their  ordinance  for  erecting  new 
States  some  time  since,  declared  that  the  new  States 
shall  be  republican,  and  that  there  shall  be  no  slavery 
in  them.— 76.,  vol.  II,  p.  115. 

JOHNSON  (Va.): 

They  tell  us  they  see  a  progressive  danger  of  bring- 
ing about  emancipation.  The  principle  has  begun 
since  the  Revolution.  Let  us  do  what  we  will,  it  will 
come  round.  Slavery  has  been  the  foundation  of  much 
of  that  rapacity  and  dissipation  which  have  been  so 
much  disseminated  among  our  countrymen.  If  it  were 
totally  abolished,  it  would  do  much  good. — 76.,  vol.  Ill, 
pp.  6-48. 

GOVR.  RANDOLPH  (Va.): 

I  hope  there  are  none  here  who,  .  .  .  will  ad- 
vance an  objection  dishonorable  to  Virginia,  that,  at 
the  moment  they  are  receiving  the  rights  of  their  citi- 
zens, there  is  a  spark  of  hope  that  those  unfortunate 
men  now  held  in  bondage  may,  by  the  operation  of  the 
general  government,  be  made  free.— /ft.,  vol.  Ill,  p.  599. 


SLAVERY    IN   THE   UNITED    STATES.  141 

PATRICK  HENRY  (Va.) 

[argued  for]  the  power  of  Congress  ...  to  abol- 
ish slavery  in  the  States.  Another  thing  will  con- 
tribute to  bring  this  event  about.  Slavery  is  detested. 
We  feel  its  effects.  We  deplore  it  with  all  the  pity  of 
humanity. — /&.  vol.  Ill,  p.  %6$. 

On  the  presentation  of  the  Quaker  memorial 
on  slave  trade  to  the  House  of  Representatives, 
March,  1790,  JACKSON  (Ga.),  said: 

The  situation  of  the  slaves  here,  their  situation  in 
their  native  states,  and  the  disposal  of  them  in  case 
of  emancipation,  should  be  considered.  That  slavery 
was  an  evil  habit  he  did  not  mean  to  controvert;  but 
that  habit  was  already  established,  and  there  were 
peculiar  situations  in  countries  which  rendered  that 
habit  necessary.  Such  situations  the  states  of  South 
Carolina  and  Georgia  were  in :  large  tracts  of  the  most 
fertile  lands  on  the  continent  remained  uncultivated 
for  the  want  of  population.  It  was  frequently  ad- 
vanced on  the  floor  of  Congress  how  unhealthy  those 
climates  were,  and  how  impossible  it  was  for  northern 
constitutions  to  exist  there.  What,  he  asked,  Is  to 
be-  done  with  this  uncultivated  territory?  Is  it  to  re- 
main a  waste?  Is  the  rice  trade  to  be  banished  from 
our  coasts?  Are  Congress  willing  to  deprive  them- 
selves of  the  revenue  arising  from  that  trade,  and  which 
is  daily  increasing,  and  to  throw  this  great  advantage 
in  the  hands  of  other  countries?  .  .  . — Annals,  vol. 
II,  pp.  1197-1205. 

Eight  years  later  the  territory  of  Mississippi 
was  organized.  On  motion  to  strike  out  the 
clause  protecting  slavery  in  the  territory,  MR. 
HARPER  (S.  C.),  said: 

In  the  Northwest  Territory  the  regulation  forbidding 
slavery  was  a  very  proper  one,  as  the  people  inhabiting 
that  part  of  the  country  were  from  parts  where  slavery 
did  not  prevail,  and  they  had  of  course  no  slaves 
amongst  them;  but  in  the  Miss.  Territory  .  .  that 
species  of  property  already  exists,  and  persons  emigrat- 
ing there  from  the  Southern  States  would  carry  with 
them  property  of  this  kind.  To  agree  to  such  a  propo- 


142  AMERICAN    HISTORY    STUDIES. 

sition  would,  therefore,  be  a  decree  of  banishment  to 
all  the  persons  settled  there  and  of  exclusion  to  all 
those  intending  to  go  there  ...  it  struck  at  the 
habits  and  customs  of  the  people. — Berton'a  Debates, 
vol.  II,  p.  221  f. 

MR.  VARNUM  (Mass.) 

thought  the  high-price  of  lands  in  the  N.  W.  Terri- 
tory was  due  to  the  absence  of  slavery  "and  if  the 
Southern  States  could  get  clear  of  their  slaves,  the 
price  of  their  land  would  immediately  rise." — Ib.,  p. 
221  f. 

MR  GILES  (Va.) 

thought  that  if  the  slaves  of  the  Southern  States  were 
permitted  to  go  into  this  Western  country,  by  lessen- 
ing the  number  in  those  States,  and  spreading  them 
over  a  large  surface  of  country  there  would  be  a  greater 
probability  of  ameliorating  their  condition. — lb.,  p. 
221  f. 

At  the  time  of  the  organization  of  Arkansas 
as  a  territory,  in  1819,  a  long  and  bitter  debate 
took  place.  These  extracts  show  the  spirit: 

WALKER  (N.  C.): 

Shall  they  [the  South]  be  proscribed  and  prohibited 
from  taking  their  slaves?  Sir,  if  so,  your  land  will  be 
an  uncultivated  waste — a  fruitless  soil;  it  is  further 
south  than  the  35th  degree  of  latitude,  a  low  and  warm 
country,  that  will  not  support  a  laboring  white  popula- 
tion. 

Slavery  is  an  evil  we  have  long  deplored  but  cannot 
cure;  it  was  entailed  upon  us  by  our  ancestors;  it  was 
not  our  original  sin,  and  we  cannot,  in  our  present 
situation,  release  ourselves  from  the  embarrassment; 
and,  as  it  is  an  evil,  the  more  diffusive,  the  lighter  it 
will  be  felt,  and  the  wider  it  is  extended  the  more  equal 
the  proportion  of  inconvenience. — Annals,  vol.  XXXIV, 
p.  1226. 

MCLANB  (Delaware): 

The  fixing  of  a  line  on  the  West  of  the  Miss.,  north 
of  which  slavery  should  not  be  tolerated  had  alwaya 


SLAVERY    IN   THE    UNITED    STATES.  143 

been  with  him  a  favorite  policy,  and  he  hoped  the  day 
was  not  distant  when  upon  principles  of  fair  compro- 
mise it  might  constitutionally  be  effected. 

If  we  meet  upon  principles  of  reciprocity  we  cannot 
fail  to  do  justice  to  all.  It  has  already  been  avowed 
by  gentlemen  .  .  .  from  the  South  and  the  West 
that  they  will  agree  upon  a  line  which  shall  divide  the 
slaveholding  from  the  non-slaveholding  states.  It  is 
this  proposition  I  am  anxious  to  effect;  but  I  wish  to 
effect  it  by  some  compact  which  shall  be  binding  upon 
all  parties,  and  all  subsequent  legislatures;  which  can- 
not be  changed  and  will  not  fluctuate  with  the  diver- 
sity of  feeling  and  of  sentiment  to  which  this  Empire 
in  its  course  must  be  destined.—  II).,  p.  1227  f. 

The  Missouri  question,  and  line  of  36°  30', 


REID  (Ga.): 

Slavery  is  "an  unnatural  state;  a  dark  cloud  which 
obscures  half  the  lustre  of  our  free  institutions!  But 
it  is  a  fixed  evil  which  we  can  only  alleviate.  Are  we 
called  upon  to  emancipate  our  slaves?  I  answer,  their 
welfare  —  the  safety  of  our  citizens,  forbid  it."  — 
vol.  XXXV,  p.  1024.  NT-CX 

If  you  remain  inexorable;  if  you  persist  in  refusing 
the  humble,  the  decent,  the  reasonable  prayer  of  Mis- 
souri, is  there  no  danger  that  her  resistance  will  rise 
in  proportion  to  your  oppression?  Sir,  the  firebrand, 
which  is  even  now  cast  into  your  society  will  require 
blood  —  ay;  and  the  blood  of  freemen  —  for  its  quench- 
ing. Your  Union  shall  tremble  as  under  the  force  of 
an  earthquake.—  /&.,  p.  1033. 

BARBOUR  (Va.): 

I  am  not  easily  alarmed,  nor  am  I  disposed  to  be  an 
alarmist;  but  this  I  will  say,  that  I  fear  this  subject 
will  be  an  ignited  spark,  which,  communicated  to  an 
immense  mass  of  combustion,  will  produce  an  explosion 
that  will  shake  this  Union  to  its  center.  This  por- 
tentious  subject,  twelve  months  ago,  was  a  little  spark 
scarcely  visible  above  the  horizon;  it  has  already  over- 
cast the  heavens,  obscuring  every  other  object.  —  lb.,  p. 
107. 


144  AMERICAN   HISTORY   STUDIES. 

WHITMAN  (Mass.): 

In  the  degree  in  which  you  increase  the  proportion 
of  the  free  beyond  that  of  the  slave  population,  in  the 
same  ratio  you  increase  the  chance  for  emancipation, 
final  and  total.  .  .  .  The  best  mode,  ...  to 
promote  the  cause  of  a  final  emancipation  would  be 
to  suffer  the  slaves  to  be  scattered  thinly  over  the 
western  States.  The  permission  of  slavery  in  the 
Territory  of  Arkansas  will  afford  no  additional  facili- 
ties to  the  introduction  of  this  unfortunate  race 
from  abroad.  The  natural  increase  will  be  the  same 
whether  in  one  part  of  the  Union  or  the  other;  or  if 
it  would  be  greater  in  the  Western  country,  it  would 
be  the  consequence  of  an  ameliorated  condition  and 
therefore  not  to  be  regretted. — Annals,  vol.  XXXIV,  pp. 
1274-5. 

Why  may  we  not  continue  in  this  way,  admitting 
states  off  against  the  non-slaveholding  states  westerly, 
with  the  restriction,  and  off  against  the  slaveholding 
States  without  it?  True,  sectional  lines  are  to  be  ab- 
horred: But  we  have  them  in  relation  to  this  subject 
already.  The  line  [of  the  Ohio]  is  distinctly  marked. 
.  .  .  Having  so  begun  we  must  continue  on. — Ib.,  p. 
1278. 

JEFFERSON  writes: 

[1820.]  The  coincidence  of  a  marked  principle,  moral 
and  political,  with  geographical  lines,  once  conceived. 
I  feared  would  never  more  be  obliterated  from  the 
mind;  that  it  would  be  recurring  on  every  occasion 
and  renewing  irritations,  until  it  would  kindle  such 
mutual  and  mortal  hatred  as  to  render  separation 
preferable  to  eternal  discord.  I  have  been  among  the 
most  sanguine  in  believing  that  our  Union  would  be 
of  long  duration.  I  now  doubt  it  much.— Jefferson, 
Works,  vol.  VII  (Washington  ed.J,  p.  158. 

QUESTIONS. 

1.  Were  negroes  subject  to  military  service?  2. 
What  does  this  imply  in  regard  to  their  position? 
3.  Were  there  many  negroes  in  the  north?  4.  Why 
the  law  against  the  negroes  being  abroad  at  night? 
5.  How  long  had  they  been  away  from  Africa  at  this 
time?  6.  Why  did.  they  question  whether  the  negro 


SLAVERY    IN    THB    UNITED    STATES.  145 

should  be  Christianized?  7.  How  did  they  settle  the 
matter?  8.  How  about  their  right  to  testify?  9.  Why 
do  you  suppose  such  a  law  was  passed?  10.  Why  the 
acts  against  assembling  of  negroes?  11.  Make  a  list 
of  the  states  that  had  harsh  laws  against  the  negro. 
12.  Why  such  laws?  13.  Who  first  began  to.  oppose 
slavery?  14.  What  reasons  given?  15.  Write  an  essay 
on  the  subject  of  slavery  in  the  colonies.  16.  What 
change  of  tone  at  the  beginning  of  the  Revolution? 
17.  From  what  section  does  the  greatest  opposition 
come?  18.  How  do  you  explain  the  change?  19.  Who 
did  they  blame  for  the  slave  trade?  /20.  Did  they  stop 
it?  21.  How  were  they  going  to  try  to  stop  it?  22. 
How  did  Jefferson  feel  on  the  subject?  2C  Collect  all 
the  thoughts  you  can  from  Jefferson  on  the  subject. 
24.  In  1785  how,  according  to  Jefferson,  was  slavery 
regarded  north  of  the  Potomac?  25.  How  did  the 
leaders  in  Virginia  feel  about  emancipation?  26.  Did 
Jefferson  predict  truthfully  in  regard  to  future?  •  27. 
Make  an  outline  to  show  the  views,  plans,  and  predic- 
tions of  Jefferson.  28.  What  other  men  opposed?  29. 
What  were  their  arguments?  30.  What  do  you  believe 
to  be  the  cause  of  such  a  radical  revolution  in  thought? 
31.  Name  the  compromises  in  the  constitution.  32. 
Give  their  terms.  33.  Any  change  in  tone  in  discus- 
sion from  that  of  writings  just  quoted?  34.  What 
does  the  change  mean?  35.  What  section  is  strongest 
against  slavery  and  the  slave  trade?  jti.  Write  an 
essay  on  slavery  in  the  constitution,  including  therein 
the  debates.  •  37.  Trace  the  character  of  the  arguments 
in  congress.  •  38.  Gather  all  the  moral  arguments  you 
can.  39.  Do  both  sides  use  them?  40.  Note  all  the 
industrial  points  in  the  arguments.  41.  Which  side 
uses  such  arguments  most  effectively?  42.  What  is 
the  political  argument?  43.  Compare  the  feeling  of 
1775  and  that  of  1820.  44.  Mark  all  the  changes.  45. 
Which  section  has  changed  most?  46.  What  predic- 
tions do  Adams  and  Jefferson  make  about  1820?  47. 
What  is  their  argument?  48.  Did  they  prove  to  be  cor- 
rect? 49.  Jefferson's  thought  on  compromise  of  1820? 
ISO.  Write  essay  on  whole  subject. 


American  History  Studies 


No.  7. 


MARCH,  1898. 


SLAVERY  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES 

ii. 


SELECTIONS  MADE  FROM  THE  SOURCES 


H.  W.  CALDWELL, 

UNIVERSITY  OF  NEBRASKA. 


J.  H.  MILLER,  Publisher, 
LINCOLN,  NEBRASKA. 


Yearly  Subscription,  4o  cents.  Single  Copy,  5  cents. 


PUBLISHED  MONTHLY,  EXCEPT  JULY  AND  AUGUST. 

Entered  as  second-class  matter  at  the  Post  Office,  Liucolu,  Nebraska, 
U.  S.  A. 


AMERICAN  HISTORY  STUDIES. 


SLAVERY  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES. 

cJ|  FOUND  it  utterly  impossible  to  handle  the 
^  subject  of  slavery  in  a  satisfactory  manner 
in  one  article;    and  it  must  be  confessed 
that  two  numbers  even  do  hardly  more  than 
touch  the  abundance  of  interesting  and  valu- 
able matter  that  lies  at  hand. 

In  the  last  number  we  had  just  reached  the 
moment  when  this  question  began  to  absorb  a 
large  part  of  the  thought  of  the  American  peo- 
ple. This  article  begins  with  the  struggle  over 
the  "Incendiary  Publications"  and  the  "Right 
of  Petition,"  6f  which  J.  Q.  Adams  was  the  hero, 
and  ends  with  the  inauguration  of  Lincoln. 

The  next  number  will  deal  with  the  Civil  War 
and  Reconstruction. 

J.  Q.  ADAMS  writes,  1820: 

Slavery  Is  the  great  and  foul  stain  upon  the  North, 
American  Union,  and  it  is  a  contemplation  worthy  of 
the  most  exalted  soul  whether  its  total  abolition  is  or 
is  not  practicable:  if  practicable  by  what  means  it 
may  be  effected,  and  if  a  choice  of  means  be  within  the 
scope  of  the  object,  what  means  would  accomplish  it  at 
the  smallest  cost  of  human  suffering.  A  dissolution, 
at  least  temporary,  of  the  Union,  as  now  constituted, 
would  be  certainly  necessary,  and  the  dissolution  must 
be  upon  a  point  involving  the  question  of  slavery,  and 
no  other.  The  Union  might  then  be  organized  on  the 
fundamental  principle  of  emancipation.  The  object  is 
vast  in  its  compass,  awful  in  its  prospects,  sublime  and 
beautiful  in  its  issue,  a  life  devoted  to  it  would  be  nobly 
spent  or  sacrificed. — J.  Q.  Adams,  Memoirs,  vol.  IV,  p. 
631. 

It  slavery  be  the  destined  sword  in  the  hand  of  the 


SLAVERY   IN   THE    UNITED    STATES.  149 

destroying  angel  which  is  to  sever  the  ties  of  this 
Union,  the  same  sword  will  cut  in  sunder  the  bonds  of 
slavery  itself.  A  dissolution  of  the  Union  for  the  cause 
of  slavery  would  be  followed  by  a  servile  war  in  the 
slave-holding  States  combined  with  a  war  between  the 
two  severed  portions  of  the  Union.  It  seems  to  me 
that  its  result  must  be  the  exterpation  of  slavery  from 
this  whole  continent;  and,  calamitous  and  desolating 
as  this  course  of  events  in  its  progress  must  be,  so 
glorious  would  be  its  final  issue,  that  as  God  shall  judge 
me,  I  do  not  say  that  it  is  not  to  be  desired. 

Never  since  human  sentiments  and  human  conduct 
were  influenced  by  human  speech  was  there  a  theme  for 
eloquence  like  the  free  side  of  this  question.  .  .  . 
Oh,  if  but  one  man  could  arise  with  a  genius  capable 
of  communicating  those  eternal  truths  that  belong  to 
this  question,  to  lay  bare  in  all  its  nakedness  that  out- 
rage upon  the  goodness  of  God,  human  slavery;  now 
is  the  time  and  this  is  the  occasion,  upon  which  such  a 
man  would  perform  the  duties  of  an  angel  upon  earth. 
— Ibid,  vol.  V,  p.  210. 

HAYNE  speaks  on  the  Panama  mission  in  the 
United  States  senate,  March,  1826,  in  these  pro- 
phetic words: 

The  question  of  slavery  is  one,  in  all  its  bearings  of 
extreme  delicacy;  and  concerning  which  I  know  of  but 
a  single  wise  and  safe  rule,  either  for  the  states  in 
which  it  exis'ts  or  for  the  Union.  It  must  be  considered 
and  treated  entirely  as  a  domestic  question.  With  re- 
spect to  foreign  nations,  the  language  of  the  United 
States  ought  to  be,  that  it  concerns  the  peace  of  our 
own  political  family,  and  therefore  we  cannot  permit  it 
to  be  touched;  and  in  respect  to  the  slaveholding  s.ates, 
the  only  safe  and  constitutional  ground  on  which  they 
can  stand  is,  that  they  will  not  permit  it  to  be  brought 
into  question,  either  by  their  sister  states  or  by  the 
federal  government.  It  is  a  matter  for  ourselves.  To 
touch  it  at  all,  is  to  violate  our  most  sacred  rights — to 
put  in  jeopardy  our  dearest  interests — the  peace  of  our 
country — the  safety  of  our  families,  our  altars,  and  our 
firesides. '  ...  On  the  slave  question  my  opinion  is 
this:  I  consider  our  rights  in  that  species  of  property  as 
not  even  open  to  discussion,  either  here  or  elsewhere; 
and  in  respect  to  our  duties,  (imposed  by  our  situation,) 


150  AMERICAN    HISTORY    STUDIES. 

we  are  not  to  be  taught  them  by  fanatics,  religious,  or 
political.  To  call  into  question  our  rights,  is  grossly  to 
violate  them;  to  attempt  to  instruct  us  on  this  subject 
is  to  insult  us;  to  dare  to  assail  our  institutions,  is 
wantonly  to  invade  our  peace.  Let  me  solemnly  de- 
clare, once  for  all,  that  the  Southern  States  never  will 
permit,  and  never  can  permit,  any  interference  what- 
ever in  their  domestic  concerns;  and  that  the  very  day 
on  which  the  unhallowed  attempt  shall  be  made  by  the 
authorities  of  the  federal  government,  we  will  consider 
ourselves  as  driven  from  the  Union.  Let  the  conse- 
quences be  what  they  may,  they  never  can  be  worse 
than  such  as  must  inevitably  result  from  suffering  a 
rash  and  ignorant  interference  with  our  domestic  peace 
and  tranquillity.  But  ...  I  apprehend  no  such 
violation  of  our  constitutional  rights.  I  believe  that 
this  house  is  not  disposed  and  that  the  great  body  of 
our  intelligent  and  patriotic  fellow-citizens  in  the  other 
states  have  no  inclination  whatever  to  interfere  with 
us.  ...  If  we  are  true  to  ourselves  we  shall  have 
nothing  to  fear. — Bcnton. 

By  1831  the  raising  of  slaves  in  the  northern 
states  for  market  had  become  a  recognized  in- 
dustry, as  may  be  seen  from  the  following  let- 
ters and  speeches: 

HENRY  CLAY,  in  an  address  before  the  Ken- 
tucky Colonization  Society  in  1829,  said: 

It  is  believed  that  nowhere  in  the  United  States 
would  slave  labor  be  generally  employed,  if  the  pro- 
prietor was  not  tempted  to  raise  slaves  by  the  high 
price  of  the  Southern  market,  which  keeps  it  up  in  his 
own. — Ibid,  p.  251. 

PROF.  DEW,  president  of  William  and  Mary 
college,  in  reviewing  the  debates  in  the  Vir- 
ginia constitutional  convention,  in  1831-2,  said 
of  the  domestic  slave  trade: 

A  full  equivalent  being  thus  left  in  the  place  01  the 
slave,  this  immigration  becomes  an  advantage  to  the 
State,  and  does  not  check  the  black  population  .  .  . 
because  it  furnishes  every  inducement  to  the  master 
to  attend  to  the  negroes,  to  encourage  breeding,  and  to 


SLAVERY  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES.     151 

cause  the  greatest  number  possible  to  be  raised.  .  .  . 
Virginia  is  in  faci  a  negro-raising  buue  lor  other  mates. 
— Goodell,  p.  250. 

CHAS.  F.  MERCER,  in  the  Virginia  constitu- 
tional convention  of  1829,  said: 

The  tables  of  the  natural  growth  of  the  slave  popula- 
tion demonstrate,  when  compared  with  the  [actual] 
increase  of  its  numbers  in  the  Commonwealth  for  20 
yrs.  past,  that  an  annual  revenue  of  not  less  than  a, 
million  and  a  half  of  dollars  is  derived  from  the  ex- 
portation of  a  part  of  this  population.— Ibid,  p.  250. 

MR.  GHOLSON,  in  the  Virginia  legislature, 
January  18,  1831 

[Claimed  the  right  of]  the  owner  of  brood  mares  to 
their  product,  and  of  the  owner  of  female  slaves  to  their 
increase.  The  legal  maxim  of  partus  sequiter  vcntrem 
is  coeval  with  the  existence  of  the  right  of  property 
itself,  and  is  founded  in  wisdom  and  justice.  It  is  oa 
the  justice  and  inviolability  of  this  maxim  that  the 
master  foregoes  the  services  of  a  female  slave — has  her 
nursed  and  raises  the  helpless  infant  offspring.  The 
value  of  the  property  justifies  the  expense;  and  I  do 
not  hesitate  to  say  that  in  its  increase  consists  much 
of  our  wealth. — Ibid,  p.  257. 

Let  us  now  see  what  views  were  held  in  re- 
gard to  the  printing  and  disseminating  of  aboli- 
tion literature  by  1835. 

The  South  Carolina  legislature  passed  this  re- 
solve in  1835: 

Resolved,  That  the  Legislature  of  South  Carolina,  hav- 
ing every  confidence  in  the  justice  and  friendship  of 
the  non-slaveholding  States,  announces  her  confident  ex- 
pectation, and  she  earnestly  requests,  that  the  Govern- 
ment of  these  States  will  promptly  and  effectually  sup- 
press all  those  associations  within  their  respectiva 
limits,  purporting  to  bo  abolition  societies.  .  .  . — • 
Cited  in  Goodell,  p.  41S. 

The  North  Carolina  general  assembly  [1835]: 

Resolved,  That  our  sister  States  are  respectfully  re- 
quested to  enact  penal  laws,  prohibiting  the  printing, 


152  AMERICAN    HISTORY    STUDIES. 

within  their  respective  limits,  all  such  publications 
as  may  have  a  tendency  to  make  our  slaves  discon- 
tented.— Ibid,  p.  413. 

The  Alabama  legislature  [1836] : 

Resolved,  That  we  call  upon  our  sister  States,  and 
respectfully  request  them  to  enact  such  penal  laws  as 
will  finally  put  an  end  to  the  malignant  deeds  of  the 
abolitionists.— Ibid,  p.  413. 

Virginia  legislature  [1836] : 

Resolved,  That  the  non-slaveholding  States  of  the 
Union  are  respectfully  but  earnestly  requested  promptly 
to  adopt  penal  enactments  or  such  other  measures  as 
will  effectually  suppress  all  associations  within  their 
respective  limits  purporting  to  be,  or  having  the  char- 
acter of  abolition  societies.— Ibid,  p.  411. 

On  learning  that  the  United  States  mails  had 
been  searched  for  "incendiary  documents"  at 
Charleston,  South  Carolina,  on  July  29,  1835, 
POSTMASTER-GENERAL  AMOS  KENDALL  said: 

•  By  no  act  or  direction  of  mine,  official  or  private, 
could  I  be  induced  to  aid,  knowingly,  in  giving  circula- 
tion to  papers  of  this  description,  directly  or  indirectly. 
We  owe  an  obligation  to  the  laws,  but  a  higher  one  to 
the  communities  in  which  we  live,  and  if  the  former  be 
permitted  to  destroy  the  latter,  it  Is  patriotism  to  dis- 
regard them.  Entertaining  these  views  I  cannot  sanc- 
tion, and  will  not  condemn,  the  step  you  have  taken. 
Your  justification  must  be  looked  for  in  the  character 
of  the  papers  detained  and  the  circumstances  by  which 
you  are  surrounded. — Ibid,  p.  416. 

PRESIDENT  JACKSON,  in  his  annual  message, 
December,  1835,  used  these  words  in  discussing 
the  subject: 

1  would  therefore  call  the  special  attention  of  Con- 
gress to  the  subject,  and  respectfully  suggest  the  pro- 
priety of  passing  such  a  law  as  will  prohibit  under 
severe  penalties,  the  circulation,  in  the  Southern  States, 
through  the  mail,  of  incendiary  publications,  intended 
to  instigate  the  slaves  to  insurrection. 


SLAVERY    IN    THE    UNITED    STATES.  Lb'6 

THE  RIGHT   OF   PETITION. 

KING  (Ala.): 

We  were  sent  here  to  do  the  business  of  the  public 
and  not  to  set  up  arbitrary  codes  for  the  protection  of 
our  dignity,  and  then  be  left  to  determine  what  dignity. 
mpaTi?.     I  con?ider  true  senatorial  dignity  to  con^t  ;  < 
a  straight-forward,  independent  discharge  of  our  consti- 
tutional duties,  and  not  in  searching  into  the  language 
employed  by  our  constituents,  when  they  ask  us  for  a 
redress  of  grievances,  to  see  if  we  cannot  find  some  pre- 
text to  commit  a  fraud  upon  the  constitution. — Benton, 
vol.  XII,  p.  723. 

BUCHANAN  (Pa.): 

Let  it  once  be  understood  that  the  sacred  right  of 
petition  and  the  cause  of  the  abolitionists  must  rise  or 
fall  together,  and  the  consequences  may  be  fatal.  .  . 
We  have  just  as  little  right  to  interfere  with  slavery 
in  the  South  as  we  have  to  touch  the  right  of  peti- 
tion. .  .  .  Can  a  republican  government  exist  with- 
out it?  ...  If  the  people  have  a  constitutional 
right  to  petition,  a  corresponding  duty  is  imposed  upon 
us  to  receive  their  petitions. — Ibid,  pp.  733-5. 

ADAMS: 

[A  discussion  on  petitions  is  bound  to  be  merely]  a 
discussion  upon  the  merits  of  slavery.  Sir,  on  such  a 
discussion  every  speech  made  by  a  Representative  from 
the  north  of  Mason  and  Dixon's  line,  in  this  House, 
will  bo  an  incendiary  pamphlet  and  what  will  you  do 
with  them?  .  .  .  The  newspapers  report  these 
speeches;  every  speech  is  circulated  through  your 
whole  country;  and  how  can  you  arrest  it?  ... 
Well,  sir,  you  begin  with  suppressing  the  right  of  peti- 
tion; you  must  next  suppress  the  right  of  speech  in 
this  House;  for  you  must  offer  a  resolution  that  every 
member  who  dares  to  express  a  sentiment  of  this  kind 
shall  be  expelled,  or  that  speeches  shall  not  go  forth 
to  the  public — shall  not  be  circulated.  What  will  be 
the  consequence  then?  You  suppress  the  right  of 
petition;  you  suppress  the  freedom  of  speech;  the  free- 
dom of  the  press,  and  the  freedom  of  religion;  for,  in 
the  minds  of  many  worthy,  honest,  and  honorable  men, 
fanatics,  if  you  please  so  to  call  them,  this  is  a  re- 


154  AMERICAN    HISTORY    STUDIES. 

llgious  question  .  .  .  and  however  erroneous  may 
be  their  conclusions,  it  is  not  for  me,  nor  for  this 
House,  to  judge  them. — Ibid,  vol.  XIII,  pp.  9-10. 

Calhoun  was  the  great  apostle  of  the  south, 
and  his  words — the  words  of  an  honest  man — 
will  usually  give  us  the  very  clearest  insight 
into  the  thought  of  his  section: 

On  the  right  of  rejecting  abolition  petitions,  al- 
though, in  his  opinion,  one  of  the  clearest  that  can  be 
imagined,  we  of  the  South  were,  unfortunately  for  the 
peace  of  the  country,  in  a  minority.  So,  also,  on  the 
question  of  the  constitutional  right  of  abolishing  slav- 
ery in  this  District  and  the  Territories,  and  also  on 
every  other  particular  question  which  has  been  at- 
tempted to  be  raised  on  constitutional  grounds,  as  a 
barrier  to  our  rights  and  security.  What  remains, 
then,  £hort  of  taking  our  protection  into  our  own  hands, 
but  to  find  some  barrier  in  the  general  character  and 
structure  of  our  political  system?  and  where  can  we 
find  that  but  in  the  view  of  the  Constitution,  which 
considers  it  as  a  compact  between  sovereign  and  in- 
dependent States,  formed  for  their  mutual  prosperity 
and  security? 

He  saw  (said  Mr.  C.)  in  the  question  before  us  the 
fate  of  the  South.  It  was  a  higher  than  the  mere 
naked  question  of  master  and  slave.  It  involved  a 
great  political  institution,  essential  to  the  peace  and 
existence  of  one-half  of  this  Union. 

They  were  there  inseparably  united,  beyond  the  pos- 
sibility of  separation.  Experience  had  shown  that  the 
existing  relation  between  them  secured  the  peace  and 
happiness  of  both.  Each  had  improved;  the  inferior 
greatly;  so  much  so,  that  it  had  attained  a  degree  of 
civilization  never  before  attained  by  the  black  race  in 
any  age  or  country.  Under  no  other  relation  could  they 
co-exist  together.  To  destroy  it  was  to  involve  a  whole 
region  In  slaughter,  carnage,  and  desolation;  and, 
come  what  will,  we  must  defend  and  preserve  it. 

This  agitation  has  produced  one  happy  effect  at 
least;  it  has  compelled  us  of  the  South  to  look  into  the 
nature  and  character  of  this  great  institution,  and  to 
correct  many  false  impressions  that  even  we  had  en- 
tertained in  relation  to  it.  Many  in  the  South  once  be- 


SLAVERY    IN    THE    UNITED    STATES,  155 

lieved  that  it  was  a  moral  and  political  evil;  that  folly 
and  delusion  are  gone;  we  see  it  now  in  its  true  light 
and  regard  it  as  the  most  sate  and  stable  basis  for  free 
institutions  in  the  world. — Congressional  Globe,  vol.  VI, 
pp,  29,  61-62. 

.  .  .  It  is  easy  to  see  the  end.  By  the  necessary 
course  of  events,  if  left  to  themselves,  we  must  be- 
come, finally,  two  peoples.  It  is  impossible  under  the 
deadly  hatred  which  must  spring  up  between  the  two 
great  sections,  if  the  present  causes  are  permitted  to 
operate  unchecked,  that  we  should  continue  under  the 
same  political  system.  The  conflicting  elements  would 
burst  the  Union  asunder.  .  .  .  We  of  the  South 
will  not,  cannot,  surrender  our  institutions.  .  .  . 
But  let  me  not  be  understood  as  admitting,  even  by 
implication,  that  the  existing  relations  between  the 
two  races  in  the  slaveholding  States  is  an  evil: — far 
otherwise;  I  hold  it  to  be  a  good,  as  it  has  thus  far 
proved  itself  to  be  to  both,  and  will  continue  to  prove 
so  if  not  disturbed  by  the  fell  spirit  of  abolitionism. 
[Discusses  relations;  then  says:]  But  I  take  higher 
ground.  I  hold  that  in  the  present  state  of  civilization, 
where  two  races  of  different  origin,  and  distinguished 
by  color,  and  other  physical  differences,  as  well  as  in- 
tellectual, are  brought  together,  the  relation  now  exist- 
ing in  the  slaveholding  States  between  the  two,  is,  in- 
stead of  an  evil,  a  good — a  positive  good. — CalJionn, 
Works,  vol.  II,  pp.  629-30. 

The  various  "Gag"  rules,  or  rules  to  prevent 
the  reception  and  discussion  of  petitions  in  re- 
gard to  slavery,  were  passed  as  follows: 

[Pinckney's  of  5|26|1836.  Adopted  by  117  to  68  votes 
in  House  of  Representatives]: 

"Resolved,  That  all  petitions,  memorials,  resolutions, 
and  propositions  relating,  in  any  way,  or  to  any  extent, 
whatever,  to  the  subject  of  slavery,  shall,  without  be- 
ing either  printed  or  referred,  be  laid  on  the  table,  and 
no  further  action  whatever  shall  be  had  thereon." 

Hawes',  1|18|'37:  enacted  by  115  to  47. 

Patton'8,  12|21|'37:  enacted  by  122  to  74. 

Atherton's,  1|12|'38:  enacted  by  126  to  78. 

Johnson's,  1|28|'40:  enacted  by  114  to  108,  and  made  a 
standing  rule  of  the  House  till  1846.— Goodell,  pp.  !t22-S. 


156  AMERICAN    HISTORY    STUDIES. 

William  Lloyd  Garrison  and  Wendell  Phil- 
lips, as  the  leaders  of  the  Abolitionists,  speak  in 
no  uncertain  tones,  as  the  following  extracts 
will  show: 

W.  L.  Garrison  in  Faneuil  Hall,  1843. 

Resolved,  That  the  compact  which  exists  between  the 
North  and  the  South  is  "a  covenant  with  death  and  an. 
agreement  with  hell" — involving  both  parties  in  atro- 
cious criminality,  and  should  be  immediately  annulled. 

We  cannot  regard  any  man  as  a  consistent  abolition- 
ist who,  while  holding  to  the  popular  construction  of 
the  Constitution,  makes  himself  a  party  to  that  instru- 
ment, by  taking  any  office  under  it  requiring  an  oath, 
or  voting  for  its  support. 

Resolutions  of  Wendell  Phillips. 

That  the  abolitionists  of  this  country  should  make  it 
one  of  the  primary  objects  of  their  agitation,  to  dis- 
solve the  American  Union;  [and  again]  That  secession 
from  the  present  United  States  Government  is  the  duty 
of  every  abolitionist;  since  no  one  can  take  office,  or 
throw  a  vote  for  another  to  hold  office,  under  the 
United  States  Constitution,  without  violating  his  anti- 
slavery  principles,  and  rendering  himself  an  abettor  of 
the  slaveholder  in  his  sin. 

W.  L.  Garrison,  in  an  address  to  the  Friends 
of  Freedom  in  the  United  States,  undertook  a 
fresh  declaration  of  its  principles — first,  as  re- 
gards slavery: 

That  it  ought  to  be  immediately  and  forever  abol- 
ished; and  as  regards  the  existing  national  compact, 
"That  it  is  a  covenant  with  death  and  an  agreement 
with  hell,"  and  that  henceforth,  therefore,  until  slavery 
be  abolished  the  watchword  shall  be  No  UNION  WITH 
SLAVEHOLDERS. 

Continued — To  accomplish  this  sublime  resolution 
the  Society  registers  its  sacred  pledge  to  continue,  its 
agitation  on  the  above  linej. — Life  ana  Writings  of 
William  Lloyd  Garrison,  vol.  Ill,  pp.  88,  90,  100. 

PLATFORMS. 

Buffalo  platform  of  Free  Soil  Party  of  8-9-1848. 
Resolved,  That  we    ...     do  plant  ourselves  upon 


SLAVERY    IN    THE    UNITED    STATES.  157 

the  National  Platform  of  Freedom,  in  opposition  to  the 
Sectional  Platform  of  Slavery.  3 

Resolved.  That  slavery  in  the  several  States  of  this 
Union  which  recognize  its  existence,  depends  upon 
State  laws  alone,  which  cannot  be  repealed  or  modified 
by  the  Federal  Government,  and  for  which  laws  that 
Government  is  not  responsible.  We  therefore  propose 
no  interference  by  Congress  with  slavery  within  the 
limits  of  any  State. 

Resolved,  That  ...  the  entire  history  of  that 
period  [1784-7,  etc.]  clearly  shows  that  it  was  the  set- 
tled policy  of  the  nation  not  to  extend,  nationalize,  or 
encourage,  but  to  limit,  localize,  and  discourage  slav- 
ery; and  to  this  policy,  which  should  never  have  been 
departed  from,  the  Government  ought  to  return.  .  . 

Resolved,  That  we  accept  the  issue  which  the  slave 
power  has  forced  upon  us,  and  to  their  demand  for 
more  slave  States,  and  more  slave  Territory,  our  calm 
but  final  answer  is,  No  more  slave  States,  and  no  more 
slave  Territory.  Let  the  soil  of  our  extensive  domains 
be  ever  kept  free.  .  .  . 

From  1845  to  1850  the  great  question  in  con- 
gress was  in  regard  to  the  nature  of  the  power 
of  government  in  the  territories.  The  following 
extracts  suggest  several  views: 

If  ...  that  experiment  [annexation  of  new  soil] 
shall  not  prove  successful,  so  as  to  disprove  the  as- 
serted possibility  of  the  co-existence  of  the  two  races 
and  two  colors,  side  by  side,  on  the  same  soil,  in  a  rela- 
tion of  freedom  and  equality  of  rights,  how  can  any  of 
the  friends  of  either  desire  to  keep  them  forcibly  pent 
up  within  the  States  when  every  day  is  tending  faster 
and  faster  to  ferment  the  discordant  elements  into  a 
result  which  threatens  to  be  the  dissolution  of  both — 
instead  of  opening  this  safety  valve  by  which  the  nox- 
ious vapor  may  pass  off  harmlessly  and  insensibly? 

Crowd  then  your  population  into  the  Southern  States 
as  you  may,  rapidly  and  without  fear.  Texas  will  open 
before  it  as  an  outlet,  and  slavery,  retiring  from  the 
Middle  and  Southern  States  of  the  present  confederacy, 
will  find  for  a  time  a  resting-place  there.  But  only  for 
a  time.  For  the  irresistable  law  of  population  which 
decrees  that  in  a  densely  peopled  region  slavery  shall 


158  AMERICAN    HISTORY    STUDIES. 

cease  to  exist,  will  emancipate  Texas  in  her  turn,  and 
the  negro  will  then  pass  to  a  land  of  political  freedom 
and  social  dignity  under  a  genial  sky.  He  will  pass 
without  convulsion  and  leaving  no  domestic  ruin  in 
his  path.  As  his  labor  becomes  less  and  less  valuable, 
emancipation,  a  gradual,  progressive,  at  last  universal, 
will  pass  him  over  the  southern  border  to  his  own  ap- 
propriate home  in  Mexico  and  the  States  beyond.— 
Democratic  Review,  vol.  XXIII,  p.  106, 


RHETT  (S.  C.): 

The  Court  declares  that  the  territories  belong  to  the 
United  States.  They  are  tenants  in  common,  or  joint 
proprietors  and  co-sovereigns  over  them.  As  co-sov- 
ereigns they  have  agreed  in  their  common  compact,  Jhe 
Constitution,  that  their  agent,  the  General  Government, 
"may  dispose  of  and  make  all  needful  rules  and  regula- 
tions" with  regard  to  them,  but  beyond  this,  they  are 
not  limited  or  limitable  in  their  rights.  Thus  sov- 
ereignty, unalienated  and  unimpaired  by  this  mutual 
concession  to  each  other,  exists  in  all  its  plenitude 
over  our  territories;  as  much  so  as  within  the  limits  of 
the  States  themselves.  Yet  there  can  be  no  conflict, 
for  none  of  the  States  can  make  any  "rules  and  regula- 
tions" separately  within  the  territories,  which  may 
bring  them  in  conflict.  The  "rules  and  regulations" 
prevailing  will  be  made  by  all  and  obligatory  on  all, 
through  their  common  agency,  the  government  of  the 
United  States.  The  only  effect  and  prcbab'y  the  only 
object  of  their  reserved  sovereignty  is  that  it  secures 
to  each  State  the  right  to  enter  the  territories  with  her 
citizens  and  settle  and  occupy  them  with  their  prop- 
erty —  with  whatever  is  recognized  as  property  by  each 
State.  The  ingress  of  the  citizen  is  the  ingress  of  his 
sovereign,  who  is  bound  to  protect  him  in  his  settle- 
ment. .  .  .  He  is  not  responsible  to  any  of  the  co- 
sovereigns  for  the  nature  of  his  property.  —  Globe,  2!)th 
Conyresv,  Second  Session,  App.,  p.  2Jf6. 

SENATOR  BUTLER  (S.  C.): 

His  advice  to  his  constituents  would  be,  to  go  to  these 
new  territories  with  arms  in  their  hands;  to  go  as 
armed  communities,  and  take  possession  of  the  lands 
which  they  had  helped  to  acquire,  and  see  who  would 
attempt  to  dispossess  them.  ...  So  help  him  God 


SLAVERY    IN    THE    UNITED    STATES.  159 

he  would  so  advise  his  constituents  to  take  with  them 
their  property  there  and  settle  at  all  hazards.— Globe, 
30th  Congress,  First  Session,  p.  1060. 

CALHOUN  (S.  C.): 

The  separation  of  the  North  and  South  is  completed. 
The  South  has  now  a  most  solemn  obligation  to  per- 
form— to  herself — to  the  Constitution — to  the  Union. 
She  is  bound  to  come  to  a  decision  not  to  permit  this  to 
go  on  any  further  but  to  show  that,  dearly  as  she  prizes 
the  Union,  there  are  questions  which  she  regards  as  of 
greater  importance  than  the  Union. — Ibij,  />.  101 '/. 

WEBSTER  (Mass.): 

We  certainly  do  not  prevent  them  [Southern  men] 
from  going  into  these  territories  with  what  is  in  general 
law  called  property.  But  these  States  have  by  their 
local  laws  created  a  property  in  persons,  and  they  can- 
not carry  these  local  laws  with  them.  .  .  .  No  man 
can,  be  held  as  a  slave,  except  the  local  law  shall  ac- 
company him. — Ibid,  p.  1078. 

DICKINSON  (N.  Y.): 

That  no  conditions  can  be  constitutionally  imposed 
upon  any  territorial  acquisition,  inconsistent  with  the 
right  of  the  people  thereof  to  form  a  free,  sovereign 
State,  with  the  powers  and  privileges  of  the  original 
members  of  the  Confederacy,  I  deem  too  obvious  for 
serious  argument.  Whatever  laws  Congress  may  con- 
stitutionally enact  for  the  regulation  of  the  territories  cf 
the  United  States  are  subject  to  be  altered  or  repeale  I 
at  pleasure.  .  .  .  Every  State  admitted  to  the  Un'on 
from  the  moment  of  its  admission,  enjoys  all  the  rights 
of  sovereignty  common  to  every  other  member  of  the 
Confederacy.  ...  If  any  State  is  prohibited  from 
[any  of  or]  all  the  rights  of  every  other  then  it  is  not 
.  .  .  a  sovereign  State.  .  .  .  Every  Slate  after  its 
admission,  may,  in  virtue  of  its  own  sovereign  power, 
establish  or  abolish  this  institution  [slavery]  whatever 
may  have  been  the  conditions  imposed,  or  attempted  to 
be  imposed,  upon  it  during  its  territorial  existence. 

Whatever  power  may  or  may  not  rest  in  Congress 
under  the  Constitution,  that  instrument  could  not  take 
from  the  people  of  territories  the  right  to  prescribe  (heir 
own  domestic  policy;  nor  has  it  attempted  any  such 


160  AMERICAN    HISTORY    STUDIES. 

office.  .  .  .  The  republican  theory  teaches  that  sov- 
ereignty resides  with  the  people  of  a  State,  and  not  with 
its  political  organization.  ...  If  sovereignty  re- 
sides with  the  people  and  not  with  the  organization,  it 
rests  as  well  with  the  people  of  a  Territory,  in  all  that 
concerns  their  internal  condition  as  with  the  people  of 
an  organized  State.  .  .  .  And  if  in  this  respect  a 
form  of  government  is  proposed  to  them  by  the  Federal 
Government,  and  adopted  or  acquiesced  in  by  them,  they 
may  afterwards  alter  or  abolish  it  at  pleasure.  Al- 
though the  government  of  a  Territory  has  not  the  same 
sovereign  power  as  the  government  of  a  State  in  its 
political  relations,  the  people  of  a  Territory  have,  in  all 
that  appertains  to  their  internal  condition,  the  same 
sovereign  rights  as  the  people  of  a  State. — Ibid,  p.  88. 

CALHOUN.  (S.  C.) : 

The  assumption  [that  the  sovereignty  resides  in  the 
inhabitants  of  the  territories]  is  utterly  unfounded,  un- 
constitutional, without  example,  and  contrary  to  the 
entire  practice  of  the  government  from  its  commence- 
ment to  the  present  time. — Globe,  31st  Congress,  First 
Session,  p.  4514' 

Compromise  of  1850. 

CLAY(Ky.): 

It  would  not  be  possible  to  get  twenty  votes  in  the 
Senate,  or  a  proportional  vote  in  the  House,  Clay  said, 
in  favor  of  the  recognition  of  slavery  south  of  36  degrees 
30  minutes.  "It  is  impossible.  All  that  you  can  get — 
all  that  you  can  expect  to  get — all  that  was  proposed  at 
the  last  session — is  action  north  of  that  line,  and  non- 
action  as  regards  slavery  south  of  that  line.  .  .  It  is 
better  for  the  South,  that  there  should  be  non-action  as 
to  slavery  both  north  and  south  of  the  line — far  better 
that  there  should  be  non-action  both  sides  of  the  line, 
than  that  there  should  be  action  by  the  interdiction  on 
the  one  side,  without  action  for  the  admission  upon  the 
other  side  of  the  line."— Globe,  vol.  XXII,  pt.  I,  p.  125. 

WEBSTER  (Mass.): 

There  is  not  at  this  moment,  within  the  United 
States,  or  any  territory  of  the  United  States,  a  single 
foot  of  land,  the  character  of  which  in  regard  to  its 
being  free-soil  territory  or  slave  territory  is  not  fixed 


SLAVERY    IN    THE    UNITED    STATES.  161 

by  some  law,  and  some  irrepealable  law  beyond  the 
power  of  the  action  of  this-  government. 

What,  then,  have  been  the  causes  which  have  created 
so  new  a  feeling  in  favor  of  slavery  in  the  South — which 
have  changed  the  whole  nomenclature  of  the  South  on 
the  subject — and  from  being  thought  of  and  described 
in  the  terms  I  have  mentioned  ...  it  has  now  be- 
come an  institution,  a  cherished  institution  there;  no 
evil,  no  scourge,  but  a  great  religious,  social,  and  moral 
blessing,  as  I  think  I  have  heard  it  latterly  described? 
I  suppose  this,  sir,  is  owing  to  the  sudden  uprising  and 
rapid  growth  of  the  cotton  plantations  of  the  South. — 
Ibid,  p.  272. 

DOUGLAS  (111.): 

You  cannot  fix  bounds  to  the  onward  march  of  this 
great  and  growing  country.  You  cannot  fetter  the 
limbs  of  a  young  giant.  He  will  burst  your  chains.  He 
will  expand  and  grow,  and  increase,  and  extend  civiliza- 
tion, Christianity,  and  liberal  principles.  Then,  sir,  if 
you  cannot  check  the  growth  of  the  country  in  that 
direction,  is  it  not  the  part  of  wisdom  to  look  the  danger 
in  the  face,  and  provide  for  an  event  you  cannot  avoid? 
I  tell  you,  sir,  you  must  provide  for  continuous  lines  of 
settlement  from  the  Mississippi  Valley  to  the  Pacific 
Ocean.  And  in  making  this  provision  you  must  decide 
upon  what  principles  the  territory  shall  be  organized; 
and  in  other  words,  whether  the  people  shall  be  allowed 
to  regulate  their  domestic  institutions  in  their  own 
way,  according  to  the  provisions  of  this  bill,  or  whether 
the  opposite  doctrine  of  congressional  interference  is  to 
prevail.  Postpone  it,  if  you  will;  but  whenever  you  do 
act,  this  question  must  be  met  and  decided. — Sheahan's 
Life  of  Douglas,  p.  259. 

SEWARD  (N.  Y.): 

My  position  concerning  legislative  compromises  is 
this,  namely:  personal,  partizan,  temporary,  and  sub- 
ordinate questions,  may  lawfully  be  compromised;  but 
principles  can  never  be  justly  or  wisely  made  the  sub- 
jects of  compromise.  By  principles  I  mean  the  elements 
in  public  questions  of  moral  rights,  political  justice,  and 
high  national  expediency.  Does  any  honorable  senator 
assert  a  different  maxim  on  the  subject  of  legislative 
compromise? 


162  AMERICAN    filSTORY    STUDIES. 

There  is  no  peace  in  this  world  for  compromisers; 
there  is  no  peace  for  those*  who  practice  evasion;  there 
is  no  peace  in  a  republican  land  for  any  statesman  but 
those  who  act  directly,  and  boldly  abide  the  popular 
judgment  whenever  it  may  be  fairly  and  clearly  and 
fully  ascertained,  without  attempting  to  falsify  the 
issue  submitted,  or  to  corrupt  the  tribunal. — Works,  vol. 
IV,  pp.  517,  611. 

A.  H.  STEPHENS,  to  his  brother  Linton,  1850: 

In  the  message  received  to-day  you  will  see  that  the 
policy  of  General  Taylor  is  that  the  people  inhabiting 
the  new  acquisitions  shall  come  into  the  Union  as 
States,  without  the  adoption  of  territorial  governments. 
.  .  .  But  the  bearing  of  this  policy  on  the  great  ques- 
tions of  the  day  is  a  matter  still  to  be  considered.  Will 
the  Slavery  question  be  settled  in  this  way?  I  think 
not.  My  deliberate  opinion  at  this  time,  or  the  opinion 
I  have  formed  from  the  best  lights  before  me,  is  that  it 
will  be  the  beginning  of  an  end  which  will  be  the  sever- 
ance of  the  political  bonds  that  unite  the  slave-holding 
and  non-slaveholding  States  of  this  Union.  I  give  you 
this  view  rather  in  opposition  to  the  one  I  ventured  to 
express  on  the  evening  of  the  25th  of  Dicember.  I  then 
looked  to  settlement  and  adjustment  and  a  preservation 
of  the  Union;  and  as  far  as  I  then  saw  on  the  horizon, 
I  think  the  opinion  was  correct.  There  will,  perhaps, 
be  a  temporary  settlement  and  a  temporary  quiet. 
But  I  have  lately  been  taking  a  farther  and  a  broader 
view  of  the  future.  When  I  look  at  the  causes  of  the 
present  discontent  I  am  persuaded  there  will  never 
again  be  harmony  between  the  two  great  sections  of 
the  Union.  When  California  and  New  Mexico  and 
Oregon  and  Nebraska  are  admitted  as  States,  then  the 
majority  in  the  Senate  will  be  against  us.  The  power 
will  be  with  them  to  harass,  annoy,  and  oppress.  And 
it  is  a  law  of  power  to  exert  itself,  as  universal  as  it  is 
a  law  of  nature  that  nothing  shall  stand  still.  Cast 
your  eye,  then,  a  few  years  into  the  future,  and  see 
what  images  of  strife  are  seen  figuring  on  the  boards! 
In  the  hall?  of  Congress,  nothing  but  debates  about  the 
crimes  and  the  iniquity  of  slavery  and  the  duty  of  the 
General  Government  to  withhold  all  countenance  of  the 
unholy  institution  of  human  bondage.  Can  Southern 
men  occupy  seats  in  the  halls  of  a  Legislature  with  this 


SLAVEttY    IN    THE    UNITED    STATKS.  163 

constant  reproach?  It  is  not  reasonable.  It  is  more 
than  I  expect.  It  is  more  than  human  nature  can 
expect.  The  present  crisis  may  pass;  the  present 
adjustment  may  be  made;  but  the  great  question  of  the 
permanence  of  slavery  in  the  Southern  States  will  be 
far  from  being  settled  thereby.  And,  in  my  opinion, 
the  crisis  of  that  question  is  not  far  ahead.  The  very 
palliatives  now  so  soothingly  administered  do  but  more 
speedily  develop  the  stealthly  disease  which  is  fast  ap- 
proaching the  vitals.  .  .  .  My  opinion  is  that  a  dis- 
memberment of  this  Republic  is  not  among  the 
improbabilities  of  a  few  years  to  come.  In  all  my  acts 
I  shall  look  to  that  event.  I  shall  do  nothing  to  favor 
it  or  hasten,  but  I  now  consider  it  inevitable.  .  .  . 
But  I  should  not  say  much  in  praise  of  the  Union.  I 
see  no  hope  to  the  South  from  the  Union.  ...  I 
do  not  believe  much  in  resolutions,  any  way.  .  .  . 
If  I  were  now  in  the  Legislature,  I  should  introduce 
bills  reorganizing  the  militia,  for  the  establishment  of 
a  military  school,  the  encouragement  of  the  formation 
of  volunteer  companies,  the  creation  of  arsenals,  of  an 
armory,  and  an  establishment  for  making  gunpowder. 
In  these  lies  our  defence.  I  tell  you  the  argument  is 
exhausted;  and  if  the  South  do  not  intend  to  be  over- 
run with  anti-slavery  doc  rines,  they  must,  before  no 
distant  day,  stand  by  their  arms.  My  mind  is  made 
up;  I  am  for  the  fight,  if  the  country  will  back  me. 
And  if  not  we  had  better  have  no  'Resolutions.'  and 
no  gasconade.  They  will  but  add  to  our  degradation. 
.  .  .  My  course  shall  be  directed  to  the  future.  I 
shall  regard  with  little  interest  the  events  of  the  inter- 
vening years.  .  .  .  One  other  thought.  Could  the 
South  maintain  a  separate  political  organization?  On 
this  I  have  thought  a  great  deal.  It  has  been  the 
most  perplexing  question  to  my  mind.  The  result  of 
my  reflections  is  that  she  could,  if  her  psople  be  united. 
She  would  maintain  her  position,  I  think,  better  than 
the  North.  She  has  great  elements  of  power. — John- 
ston-Brmvne,  Life  of  A.  H.  Stephens,  pp.  243-5. 

THE    EXCITING    YEARS    1850-1860. 

They  threaten  us  with  a  great  Northern  party,  and  a 
general  war  upon  the  South.  If  they  were  not  mere 
hucksters  in  politics — with  only  this,  peculiarity,  that 


164  AMERICAN    HISTORY    STUDIES. 

every  man  offers  himself,  instead  of  some  other  com- 
modity, for  sale — we  should  surmise  that  they  might  do 
what  they  threaten,  and  thus  bring  out  the  real  triumph 
of  the  South,  by  making  a  dissolution  of  the  Union 
necessary. 

But  they  will  do  no  such  thing.  They  will  threaten 
and  utter  a  world  of  swelling  self-glorification,  and  end 
by  knocking  themselves  down  to  the  highest  bidder. 
To  be  sure,  if  they  could  make  the  best  bargain  by 
distroying  the  South,  they  would  set  about  it  without 
delay.  But  they  cannot.  They  live  upon  us,  and  the 
South  affords  them  the  double  glorification  of  an  object 
for  hatred  and  a  field  for  plunder.  How  far  they  may 
be  moved  to  carry  their  indignation  at  this  time  it  is 
impossible  to  say;  but  we  may  be  sure  they  will  cool  off 
just  at  the  point  when  they  discover  that  they  can 
make  nothing  more  out  of  it,  and  may  lose. — Charleston 
Mercury,  Quoted  by  Redpatli,  Echoes,  p.  460. 

It  is  vain  to  disguise  it,  the  great  issue  of  our  day  in 
this  country  is,  Slavery  or  no  Slavery.  The  present 
phase  of  that  issue  is,  the  extension  or  non-extension  of 
the  institution,  the  foundations  of  which  are  broad  and 
solid  in-  our  midst.  Whatever  the  general  measure — 
whatever  the  political  combinations — whatever  the 
party  movement — whatever  the  action  of  sections  at 
Washington,  the  one  single,  dominant,  and  pervading 
idea,  solving  all  leading  questions,  insinuating  itself 
into  every  policy,  drawing  the  horoscope  of  all  aspi- 
rants, serving  as  a  lever  or  fulcrum  for  every  interest, 
class  and  individuality — a  sort  of  directing  fatality,  is 
that  master  issue.  As  in  despite  of  right  and  reason — 
of  organisms  and  men — of  interests  and  efforts,  it  has 
become  per  se  political  destiny — why  not  meet  it?  It 
controls  the  North,  it  controls  the  South — it  precludes 
escape.  It  is  at  last  and  simply  a  question  between  the 
South  and  the  remainder  of  the  Union,  as  sections  and 
as  people.  All  efforts  to  give  it  other  direction,  to 
solve  it  by  considerations  other  than  those  which  per- 
tain to  them  in  their  local  character  and  fates,  to 
divest  it,  to  confound  it  with  objects  and  designs  of  a 
general  nature,  is  [sic]  rendered  futile.  It  has  to  be 
determined  by  the  real  parties,  by  their  action  in  their 
character  as  sections — inchoate  countries. — Charleston 
Evening  News,  Quoted  in  Redpath,  p.  496. 

The  North   has  thus  far   carried   the   South   on  its 


SLAVERY    IN    THE    UNITED    STATES.  165 

shoulders,  and  this  it  is  hound  to  do  in  all  time  to  come. 
It  has  purchased  its  lands,  maintained  the  fleets  and 
armies  required  for  its  purposes,  and  stood  between  it 
and  the  public  opinion  of  the  world  while  maintaining 
the  value  of  its  commodities  and  giving  value  to  its 
labor  and  land.  During  the  whole  of  this  period  it  has 
borne  unmeasured  insolence,  and  has  for  the  sake  of 
peace,  permitted  its  whole  policy  to  be  governed  by  a 
body  of  slaveholders  amounting  to  but  little  more  than. 
a  quarter  of  a  million  in  number.  It  has  made  one 
compromise  after  another  until  at  length  the  day  of 
compromise  has  passed,  and  has  given  place  to  the  day 
on  which  the  South  and  the  North — the  advocates  of 
Slave  labor  on  the  one  side  and  Free  labor  on  the 
other — are  now  to  measure  strength,  and  we  trust  it 
will  be  measured.—  Redpath,  Echoes,  p.  512. 

Falstaff  was  strong  in  words,  but  weak  in  action.  So 
it  is  with  the  South,  whose  every  movement  betokens 
conscious  weakness.  For  a  quarter  of  a  century  past 
she  has  been  holding  conventions,  at  which  it  has  been 
resolved  that  Norfolk,  Charleston  and  Savannah  should 
become  great  commercial  cities,  which  obstinately  they 
refuse  to  be.  She  has  resolved  upon  all  kinds  of  ex- 
pedients for  raising  the  price  of  cotton,  which  yet  is 
lower  by  l-3d.  than  it  was  ten  years  since.  She  has  re- 
solved to  suppress  discussion  of  slavery  and  the  dis- 
cussion is  now  more  rife  than  ever  before.  She  has 
resolved  upon  becoming  strong  and  independent,  but 
is  now  more  dependent  upon  the  forbearance  of  the 
world  than  in  any  time  past.  Under  such  circum- 
stances, there  need  be  small  fear  of  her  secession  from 
the  North,  which  has  so  long  stood  between  her  and 
rum.  The  irritability  of  our  Southern  friends  is  evi- 
dence of  conscious  weakness,  and  while  that  irritability 
shall  continue,  the  danger  of  dissolution  will  continue 
to  be  far  distant. 

The  Union  must  be  continued  until  at  least  the  South 
shall  have  had  the  opportunity  for  taxing  the  North  for 
the  accomplishment  of  its  projects.  Until  then  the 
Union  cannot  be  dissolved.  Such  being  the  case,  the  real 
friend  of  the  Union  is  he  who  opposes  the  annexation 
of  Cuba  and  Hayti.  and  tho  extension  of  slavery;  and 
the  real  disunionist  is  he  who  advocates  compliance 
with  Southern  demands.  Thus  far,  all  the  measures 


166  AMERICAN    HISTORY    STUDIES. 

adopted  for  the  promotion  of  the  Southern  objects 
have  been  followed  by  increased  abuse  and  increased 
threats  of  separation,  and  such  will  certainly  be  the 
case  with  all  such  future  ones.  To  preserve  the  Union, 
it  is  required  that  the  North  shall  insist  on  its  rights. 
.  .  .  The  only  real  disunionists  of  the  country,  north 
of  Mason  and  Dixon's  line,  are  the  political  dough- 
faces, like  Pierce,  Douglas,  and  Richardson,  and  the 
commercial  doughfaces  .  .  .  who  sell  themselves 
to  the  South  for  those  objects  on  which  Southern  mad- 
men now  are  bent. — Redputh,  Echoes,  512-13. 

An  extract  from  an  "Address  on  Climatology,'' 
before  the  Academy  of  Science  at  New  Orleans: 

The  institution  of  slavery  operates  }y  contrast  and 
comparison;  it  elevates  the  tone  Jf  the  superior,  adds 
to  its  refinement,  allow?  iiore  time  to  cultivate  the 
mind,  exalts  the  standaiu  in  morals,  manners,  and  in- 
tellectual endowments,  operates  as  a  safety  valve  for 
the  evil-disposed,  leaving  the  upper  race  power,  while 
it  preserves  from  degradation,  in  the  scale  of  civiliza- 
tion, the  inferior,  which  we  see  in  their  uniform  destiny 
when  left  to  themselves.  The  slaves  constitute  essen- 
tially 'he  lowest  class,  and  society  is  immeasurably 
benefited  by  having  this  class  which  constitutes  the 
offensive  fungus — the  great  cancer  of  civilized  life — a 
vast  burthen  and  expense  to  every  community,  under 
surveillance  and  control;  and  not  only  so,  but  under 
direction  as  an  efficient  agent  to  promote  the  general 
welfare  and  increase  the  wealth  of  the  community. 
The  history  of  the  world  furnishes  no  institution  under 
similar  management,  where  so  much  good  actually  re- 
sults to  the  governors  and  to  the  governed  as  this  in 
the  Southern  states  of  North  America. — Quoted  in  Olin- 
sted's  "Cotton  Kingdom,"  p.  211'. 

As  an  offset  to  the  preceding  let  us  hear  from 
Wendell  Phillips  on  "The  Lesson  of  tne  Hour/' 
Brooklyn,  Nov.  1,  1859: 

.  .  .  Somewhat  briefly  stated,  such  is  the  idea  of 
American  civilization;  uncompromising  faith — in  the 
average  selfishness,  if  you  choose — of  all  classes,  neu- 
tralizing each  other,  and  tending  towards  that  fair  play 
that  Saxons  love.  But  it  seems  to  me  that,  on  all  ques- 


SLAVERY    IN   THE    UNITED    STATES.  167 

tions,  we  dread  thought;  we  shrink  behind  something; 
we  acknowledge  ourselves  unequal  to  the  sublime  faith 
of  our  fathers;  and  the  exhibition  of  the  last  twenty 
years  and  of  the  present  state  of  public  affairs  is,  that 
Americans  dread  to  look  their  real  position  in  the  face. 
.  .  .  They  have  no  idea  of  absolute  right.  They 
were  born  since  1787,  and  absolute  right  means  the 
truth  diluted  by  a  strong  decoction  of  the  Constitution 
of  1789.  They  breathe  that  atmosphere.  They  do  not 
want  to  sail  outside  of  it;  they  do  not  attempt  to  rea- 
soa  outside  of  it.  Poisoned  with  printer's  ink,  or 
choked  with  cotton  dust,  they  stare  at  absolute  right, 
as  the  dream  of  madmen.  For  the  last  twenty  years, 
there  has  been  going  on,  more  or  less  heeded  and  un- 
derstood in  various  states,  an  insurrection  of  ideas 
against  the  limited,  cribbed,  cabined,  isolated  American 
civilization  interfering  to  restor  absolute  right.  .  .  . 
Thank  God,  I  am  not  a  citizen.  You  will  remember, 
all  of  you,  citizens  of  the  United  States,  that  there  was 
not  a  Virginia  gun  fired  at  John  Brown.  .  .  .  You 
shot  him.  Sixteen  marines  to  whom  you  pay  $8  a 
month — your  own  representatives,  .  .  .  sixteen  men, 
with  the  Vulture  of  the  Union  above  them— your  rep- 
resentatives! It  .was  the  covenant  with  death  and 
agreement  with  hell  which  you  call  the  Union  of  the 
States,  that  took  the  old  man  by  the  throat  with  a  pri- 
vate hand.  .  .  . — Redpoll,  Echoes. 

Let  us  hear  LINCOLN  speak: 

If  we  would  first  know  where  we  are,  and  whither  we 
are  tending,  we  could  better  judge  what  to  do,  and  how 
to  do  it.  We  are  now  far  into  the  fifth  year  since  a 
policy  [Kansas-Nebraska  bill]  was  initiated  with  the 
avowed  object  and  confident  promise  of  putting  an  end 
to  slavery  agitation.  Under  the  operation  of  that 
policy,  that  Agitation  has  not  only  not  ceased,  but  has 
constantly  augmented.  In  my  opinion,  it  will  not  cease 
until  a  crisis  shall  have  been  reached  and  passed.  "A 
house  divided  against  itself  cannot  stand. "  f  I  believe 
this  government  cannot  endure  permanently  half  slave 
and  half  free.  I  do  not  expect  the  Union  to  be  dis- 
solved— I  do  not  expect  the  house  to  fall — but  I  do  ex- 
pect it  will  cease  to  be  divided.  It  will  become  all  one 
thing,  or  all  the  other.  .  .  .  — Lincoln,  Works,  /., 
f>.  240, 


168  AMERICAN    HISTORY    STUDIES. 

The  Lincoln-Douglas  debate,  1858: 
I  do  not  question  Mr.  Lincoln's  conscientious  belief 
that  the  negro  was  made  his  equal,  and  hence  is  his 
brother,  but  for  my  own  part  I  do  not  regard  the  negro 
as  my  equal,  and  positively  deny  that  he  is  my  brother 
or  any  kin  to  me  whatever.  ...  He  [Lincoln]  holds 
that  the  negro  was  born  his  equal  and  yours,  and  that 
he  was  endowed  with  equality  by  the  Almighty,  and 
that  no  human  law  can  deprive  him  of  these  rights 
which  were  guaranteed  to  him  by  the  Supreme  Ruler 
of  the  universe.  Now,  I  do  not  believe  that  the  Al- 
mighty ever  intended  the  negro  to  be  the  equal  of  the 
white  man.  .  .  .  He  belongs  to  an  inferior  race, 
and  must  occupy  an  inferior  position.  I  do  not  hold 
that  because  the  negro  is  our  inferior,  therefore  he 
ought  to  be  a  slave.  By  no  means  can  such  a  conclu- 
sion be  drawn  from  what  I  have  said.  On  the  contrary, 
I  hold  that  humanity  and  Christianity  both  require 
that  the  negro  shall  have  and  enjoy  every  right,  every 
privilege,  and  every  immunity  consistent  with  the 
safety  of  the  society  in  which  he  lives.  ...  — 
Douglas,  in  the  Lincoln-Douglas  Debates,  Works,  Lincoln, 
I.,  p.  284. 

While  I  was  at  the  hotel  to-day,  an  elderly  gentleman 
called  upon  me  to  know  whether  I  was  really  in  favor 
of  producing  a  perfect  equality  between  the  negroes 
and  white  pecple.  ...  I  will  say  then  that  I  am  not, 
nor  ever  have  been,  in  favor  of  bringing  about  in  any 
way  the  social  and  political  equality  of  the  white  and 
black  races — that  I  am  not,  nor  ever  have  been,  in  fa- 
vor of  making  voters  or  jurors  of  negroes,  nor  of  quali- 
fying them  to  hold  office,  nor  to  intermarry  with  white 
people;  and  I  will  say  in  addition  to  this  that  there  is 
a  physical  difference  between  the  white  and  black  races 
which  I  believe  will  forever  forbid  the  two  faces  living 
together  on  terms  of  social  and  political  equality.  And 
inasmuch  as  they  cannot  so  live,  while  they  do  remain 
together  there  must  be  the  position  of  superior  and 
inferior,  and  I  as  much  as  any  other  man  am  In  favor 
of  having  the  superior  position  assigned  to  the  white 
race.— Lincoln,  in  Lincoln-Douglas  Debates,  Lincoln's 
Works,  I.,  p.  369. 


SLAVERY    IN    THE    UNITED    STATES.  169 

QUESTIONS. 

1.  What  did  J.  Q.  Adams  think  of  slavery?  2.  What 
did  he  expect  to  be  necessary  in  order  to  secure  its 
abolition?  3.  Was  his  plan  statesmanlike?  4.  Were 
his  predictions  in  part  fulfilled?  5.  Did  he  attempt  in 
later  years  the  work  he  here  lays  out  for  some  man? 
6.  How  did  Hayne  differ  from  Adams?  7.  Did  he  see 
danger  in  the  questions?  8.  What  remedy  did  he  pro- 
pose? 9.  How  do  you  explain  the  different  positions? 
10.  Investigate  to  see  whether  Hayne  had  a  constitu- 
tional foundation  for  his  position.  11.  Why  did  the 
northern  slave  states  desire  the  continuance  of  the 
system?  12.  What  profit  came  to  Virginia  from  the 
system?  13.  Would  Virginia  naturally  favor  or  oppose 
the  slave  trade? 

1.  What  is  meant  by  "incendiary  documents"?  2. 
How  were  they  disposed  of  in  the  south?  3.  Was  such 
a  method  right,  constitutional?  4.  What  requests  did 
the  south  "make  of  northern  states  regarding  these  doc- 
uments? 5.  Were  they  right  in  demanding  their  sup- 
pression? 6.  How  did  President  Jackson  propose  to 
deal  with  the  question?  7.  Would  his  plan  have  been 
constitutional?  8.  What  was  the  real  difficulty? 

1.  Find  out  what  the  constitution  says  in  regard  to 
the  right  of  petition.  2.  Find  out  the  nature  of  the 
petitions  sent  to  Congress.  3.  What  did  Mr.  King 
think  of  the  petitions?  4.  What  mistake  did  the  south 
make  in  opposing  the  reception  of  petitions?  5.  Name 
points  in  Calhoun's  argument.  6.  What  view  does  b.3 
take  in  regard  to  slavery?  7.  Had  the  south  always 
held  the  same  views?  8.  Did  he  hold  slavery  in  the 
abstract  to  be  a  good?  9.  What  prediction  did  he 
make?  10.  Have  his  predictions  been  fulfilled?  11. 
What  objection,  if  any,  to  the  "gag"  rule?  12.  What 
conclusion  can  you  draw  from  the  various  votes  on  the 
"gag"  rules? 

1.  How  did  Garrison  regard  the  constitution?  Why? 
2.  Was  he  a  secessionist?  3.  How  does  the  Buffalo 
Platform  differ  in  theory  from  Garrison  and  Phillips? 
4.  How  did  the  Democratic  Review  believe  slavery 
would  end?  5.  What  theories  are  given  in  various  ex- 
tracts in  regard  to  method  of  control  or  government 
of  the  territories?  6.  How  did  Webster  hold  the  char- 
acter of  the  institutions  of  the  territories  had  been 
fixed?  7.  How  did  Seward  regard  compromises?  8. 
Was  he  right?  9.  If  so  what  do  you  say  of  the  meni 
who  made  the  constitution?  10.  What  end  did  A.  H. 
Stephens  predict  for  the  Union?  11.  Compare  views 
of  Stephens  and  Phillips  and  Garrison.  12.  How  ex- 
plain their  views? 

1.  Did  the  north  and  the  south  understand  each 
other?  2.  What  qualities  did  the  south  believe  char- 
acterized the  people  of  the  north?  3.  What  did  the 
north  think  of  the  southern  people?  4.  Why  was  Cuba 
wished?  5,  Did  the  south  believe  slavery  right?  6. 


170  AMERICAN    HISTORY    STUDIES. 

What  arguments  given  to  prove  their  view?  7.  What 
did  Wendell  Phillips  think  of  the  character  of  the 
American  people  In  1859?  8.  Was  he  right?  9.  What 
difference  In  tone  between  Lincoln  and  Phillips?  10. 
How  did  Lincoln  hope  to  end  slavery?  11.  How  did 
Lincoln  regard  the  negro?  12.  How  Douglas?  13. 
What  difference  in  view  between  the  two? 

1.  Make  an  outline  covering  this  whole  period.  2. 
Write  an  essay  on  the  reasons  for  the  contradictory 
views  of  the  northern  and  southern  statesmen. 


American  History  Studies 


No.  8. 


APRIL,  1898. 


THE  CIVIL  WAH  AND  ^CONSTRUCTION, 


SELECTIONS  MADE  FROM  THE  SOURCES 


H.  W.  CALDWELL, 

UNIVERSITY  OF  NEBRASKA. 


J.  H.  MILLER,  Publisher, 

LINCOLN,  NEBRASKA. 


Yearly  Subscription,  40  cents.  Single  Copy,  5  cents. 


PUBLISHED  MONTHLY,  EXCEPT  JULY  AND  AUGUST. 

Entered  as  second-class  matter  at  the  Post  Office,  Lincoln,  Nebraska, 
TJ.  S.  A. 


AMERICAN  HISTORY  STUDIES. 


THE  CIVIL  WAR  AND   RECONSTRUCTION. 

N  the  last  two  numbers  an  attempt  -was 
made  to  trace  the  development  of  the 
slavery  question  in  American  history.  In 
this  number  the  culmination  is  reached;  the 
greatest  of  civil  wars  opens  before  us;  and 
finally  the  Union  appears, — or  shall  we  say  re- 
appears, reconstructed,  with  slavery  as  a  remi- 
niscence. However,  it  must  not  be  thought 
that  the  problem  is  ended.  The  American  peo- 
ple are  too  much  inclined  to  accept  first  settle- 
ments as  if  they  were  finals.  Citizenship  was 
conferred  on  the  negro  when  he  was  unprepared 
for  it.  He  must  now  be  fitted  for  his  duties. 
Education  in  its  broadest  terms  must  be  ex- 
tended to  him.  The  whole  country  is  inter- 
ested in,  and  affected  by,  the  solution.  The 
South  has  to  bear  the  burden,  in  the  main,  as 
she  had  to  bear  that  of  slavery.  In  this  con- 
nection, the  most  important  question  of  the 
present  and  of  the  immediate  future,  at  least, 
is  that  the  North  and  the  South  do  not  become 
estranged  over  the  solution  of  this  question 
as  they  did  in  regard  to  the  original  cause. 
Its  difficulties  should  be  recognized  by  the 
North,  and  sympathy  and  aid,  not  criticism, 
should  be  given. 

This  number  opens  with  the  election  of  Lin- 
coln, and  the  consequent  secession  of  the  South- 
ern States.  The  winter  of  1860-'61  was  perhaps 
the  most  momentous  and  deeply  interesting  of 
any  that  has  passed  over  the  history  of  our 
country.  There  may  have  been  other  moments 


THE    CIVIL   WAR    AND    RECONSTRUCTION.    173 

of  more  outward  excitement,  but  none,  perhaps, 
of  the  same  intensity.  There  was  a  general 
feeling  as  the  months  passed  that  the  crisis  had 
come.  The  North  could  hardly  be  brought  to 
realize  that  the  Southern  States  intended  to  act 
in  accordance  with  their  words;  the  Southern 
people  were  possessed  with  the  idea  that  the 
North  was  purely  materialistic  and  would  not 
fight  for  an  ideal.  How  little  the  people  of 
the  two  sections  really  did  or  could  under- 
stand each  other  the  four  years  from  1861  to 
1865  witness! 

However,  when  the  end  came,  and  the  greater 
resources, — but  only  the  same,  not  greater  cour- 
age and  devotion — had  given  the  victory  to  the 
free  states,  and  in  giving  them  their  triumph 
had  made  all  free  states,  the  settlement  of  the 
terms  of  reconstruction,  was  scarcely  less  dif- 
ficult and  taxing  than  had  been  the  details  of 
the  struggle  itself. 

During  the  year  1860-'61  almost  the  entire 
history  of  the  United  States  may  be  studied 
by  tracing  backward  to  their  beginnings  the 
principles  that  were  then  in  controversy.  The 
nature  of  the  Constitution:  were  the  States 
sovereignties?  Under  this  heading  we  might 
trace  the  development  of  the  idea  back  through 
the  Nullification  struggle,  the  Hartford  con- 
vention, the  Virginia  and  Kentucky  resolu- 
tions to  the-  Convention  of  1787,  and  then  be- 
yond to  the  forces  that  were  foundational. 
The  position  of  slavery  under  the  Constitu- 
tion: its  entire  history  would  be  necessary  to 
estimate  at  their  true  worth  the  various  argu- 
ments that  were  advocated  by  the  many  groups 
into  which  the  people  were  at  the  time  divided. 
The  powers  of  the  executive:  what  were  their 
limits  in  time  of  war?  But  it  is  impossible  to 
attempt  an  enumeration  of  the  interesting  ques- 
tions that  are  found  in  these  years  of  American 


174  AMERICAN    HISTORY    STUDIES. 

history.  Their  settlement  distinctly  modified 
the  world's  history,  and  was  of  the  greatest 
moment  in  determining  the  character  and  fu- 
ture of  the  United  States. 

Lincoln,  in  his  great  Cooper  Institute  speech 
of  February  27,  1860,  discussed  the  subject  of 
slavery  as  he  saw  it  from  the-etandpoint  of  the 
South  and  of  the  North.  In  the  concluding 
portion  he  said: 

A  few  words  now  to  Republicans.  It  is  exceedingly 
desirable  that  all  parts  of  this  great  Confederacy 
shall  be  at  peace  and  in  harmony  one  with  another. 
.  .  .  Even  though  the  Southern  people  will  not  so 
much  as  listen  to  us,  let  us  calmly  consider  their  de- 
mands and  yield  to  them  if,  in  our  deliberate  view  of 
our  duty,  we  possibly  can.  .  .  .  What  will  satisfy 
them?  Simply  this:  we  must  not  only  let  them  alone, 
but  we  must  somehow  convince  them  that  we  do  let 
them  alone.  .  .  .  What  will  convince  them?  This, 
and  this  only:  cease  to  call  slavery  wrong,  and  join 
them  in  calling  it  right.  .  .  .  Their  thinking  it 
right  and  our  thinking  it  wrong  is  the  precise  fact 
upon  which  depends  the  whole  controversy.  Think- 
ing it  right,  as  they  do,  they  are  not  to  blame  for  de- 
siring its  full  recognition  as  being  right;  but  thinking 
it  wrong,  as  we  do,  can  we  yield  to  them? — Works,  I, 
pp.  611-12. 

December  22,  1860,  Lincoln  wrote  to  A.  H. 
Stephens  in  reply  to  a  letter  from  Mr.  Stephens 
in  these  words: 

I  fully  appreciate  the  present  peril  the  country  is  in, 
and  the  weight  of  responsibility  on  me.  Do  the  people 
of  the  South  really  entertain  fears  that  a  Republican 
administration  would,  directly  or  indirectly,  interfere 
with  the  slaves,  or  with  them  about  the  slaves?  If 
they  do,  I  wish  to  assure  you,  as  once  a  friend,  and 
still,  I  hope,  not  an  enemy,  that  there  is  no  cause  for 
such  fears.  The  South  would  be  in  no  more  danger 
in  this  respect  than  it  was  in  the  days  of  Washington. 
I  suppose,  however,  this  does  not  meet  the  case.  You 
think  slavery  is  right  and  ought  to  be  extended,  while 

we  think  it  is  wrong  and  ought  to  be  restricted 

— Ibid,  p.  660. 


THE   CIVIL   WAR   AND    RECONSTRUCTION.    175 

On  the  way  to  Washington,  in  February, 
18G1,  Lincoln  made  a  series  of  speeches.  A 
few  extracts  from  these  will  give  us  an  insight 
into  Lincoln's  views  at  the  last  moment  before 
he  assumed  office. 

At  Indianapolis  he  said: 

The  words  "coercion"  and  "invasion"  are  much 
used  in  these  days.  .  .  .  What,  then,  is  "coercion"? 
What  is  "invasion"?  Would  the  marching  of  an  army 
into  South  Carolina  without  the  consent  of  her  people, 
and  with  hostile  intent  toward  them,  be  "invasion"? 
I  certainly  think  it  would.  .  .  .  But  if  the  United 
States  should  merely  hold  and  retake  its  own  forts 
and  other  property,  etc.,  .  .  .  would  any  or  all  of 
these  be  "invasion"  or  "coercion"? — Ibid,  p.  673. 

In  Cincinnati  he  repeated  and  reaffirmed  the 
words  he  had  used  in  a  speech  there  the  year 
before.  In  part  he  spoke,  addressing  the  peo- 
ple of  Kentucky,  as  follows: 

We  mean  to  treat  you,  as  near  as  we  possibly  can, 
as  Washington,  Jefferson,  and  Madison  treated  you. 
We  mean  to  leave  you  alone,  and  in  no  way  interfere 
with  your  institutions;  to  abide  by  all  and  every  com- 
promise of  the  Constitution.  .  .  .  Ibid,  p.  675. 

At  Columbus  he  used  these  words  in  con- 
cluding his  address: 

I  have  not  maintained  silence  from  any  want  of 
real  anxiety.  It  is  a  good  thing  that  there  is  no  more 
than  anxiety,  for  there  is  nothing  going  wrong.  It 
is  a  conspling  circumstance  that  when  we  look  out 
there  is  nothing  that  really  hurts  anybody.  We  enter- 
tain different  views  upon  political  questions,  but  no- 
body is  suffering  anything.  This  is  a  most  consoling 
circumstance,  and  from  it  we  may  conclude  that  all 
we  want  is  time,  patience,  and  a  reliance  on  that  God 
who  has  never  forsaken  this  people. — Works,  I,  p.  677. 

At  Pittsburgh,  on  the  same  idea,  he  said: 

Notwithstanding  the  troubles  across  the  river  [Point- 
ing south]  there  is  no  crisis  but  an  artificial  one.  .  : 
I  repeat,  then,  thera  is  no  crisis  excepting  such  a  one 
as  may  be  gotten  up  at  any  time  by  turbulent  men 


176  AMERICAN    HISTORY    STUDIES. 

aided  by  designing  politicians.  My  advice  to  them, 
under  such  circumstances,  is  to  keep  cool.  If  the  great 
American  people  only  keep  their  temper  on  both  sides 
of  the  line,  the  troubles  will  come  to  an  end,  and  the 
question  which  now  distracts  the  country  will  be  set- 
tled, just  as  surely  as  all  other  difficulties  oil  a  like 
character  which  have  originated  in  this  government 
have  been  adjusted. — Works,  I,  p.  W8. 

Lincoln  urges  the  same  thought  at  Cleveland; 
but  it  is  to  be  noticed  that  he  did  not  repeat 
it  again.  A  deeper  and  graver  tone  was  mani- 
fest as  he  approached  Washington. 

The  foregoing  extracts  give  an  insight  into 
the  ideas,  and,  to  some  extent,  the  plans  of 
Lincoln  and  the  Republicans.  Buchanan's  An- 
nual Message  states  his  thoughts  fully,  if  not 
clearl}'.  The  following  excerpts  will  afford 
something  of  an  idea  of  his  point  of  view : 

.  .  .  .  Why  is  it,  then,  that  discontent  now  so 
extensively  .prevails,  and  the  Union  of  the  States,  wh'ch 
is  the  source  of  all  these  blessings,  is  threatened  with 
destruction? 

The  long-continued  and  intemperate  interference  of 
the  Northern  people  with  the  question  of  slavery  in 
the  Southern  states  has  at  length  produced  its  natural 
effects.  The  different  sections  of  the  Union  are  now 
arrayed  against  each  other  and  the  time  has  arrived, 
so  much  dreaded  by  the  Father  of  his  Country,  when 
hostile  geographical  parties  have  been  formed.  .  .  . 

How  easy  would  it  be  for  the  American  people  to 
settle  the  slavery  question  forever,  and  to  restore 
peace  and  harmony  to  this  distracted  country!  .  .  . 
All  that  is  necessary  to  accomplish  the  object,  and  all 
for  which  the  slave  states  have  ever  contended,  is  to 
be  let  alone  and  permitted  to  manage  their  domestic 
institutions  in  their  own  way.  As  sovereign  States, 
they,  and  they  alone,  are  responsible  before  God  and 
the  world  for  the  slavery  existing  among  them.  .  .  . 

And  this  brings  me  to  observe  that  the  election  of 
any  one  of  our  fellow-citizens  to  the  office  of  President 


THE    CIVIL    WAR    AND    RECONSTRUCTION.    177 

does  not  of  itself  afford  just  cause  for  dissolving  the 
Union.  ...  In  order  to  justify  a  resort  to  revolu- 
tionary resistance,  the  Federal  Government  must  be 
guilty  of  "a  deliberate,  palpable,  and  dangerous  exer- 
cise" of  powers  not  granted  by  the  Constitution. 

In  order  to  justify  secession  as  a  constitutional 
remedy,  it  must  be  on  the  principle  that  the  Federal 
Government  is  a  mere  voluntary  association  of  States. 
.  .  .  If  this  be  so,  the  Confederacy  is  a  rope  of  sand, 
.  .  .  [which]  might  be  broken  into  fragments  in  a 
few  weeks,  which  cost  our  forefathers  many  years  of 
toil,  privation,  and  blood  to  establish. 

Such  a  principle  is  wholly  inconsistent  with  the  his- 
tory as  well  as  the  character  of  the  Federal  Constitu- 
tion. .  .  . 

It  [the  Union]  was  intended  to  be  perpetual,  and  not 
to  be  annulled  at  the  pleasure  of  any  one  of  the  con- 
tracting parties. 

It  may  be  asked,  then,  are  the  people  of  the  States 
without  redress  against  the  tyranny  and  oppression 
of  the  Federal  Government?  By  no  means.  The  right 
of  resistance  on  the  part  of  the  governed  against  the 
oppression  of  their  governments  cannot  be  denied. 
It  exists  independently  of  all  constitutions.  .  .  . 
But  the  distinction  must  ever  be  observed  that  this  is 
revolution  against  an  established  government,  and  not 
a  voluntary  secession  from  it  by  virtue  of  an  inherent 
constitutional  right.  In  short,  let  us  look  the  danger 
fairly  in  the  face;  secession  is  neither  more  nor  less 
than  revolution.  It  may  or  it  may  not  be  a  justifiable 
revolution,  but  still  it  is  revolution.  .  .  . 

Then  in  speaking  of  the  power  of  Congress 
or  the  president  to  coerce  a  State,  should  it 
attempt  secession,  he  used  this  language: 

The  question  fairly  stated  is:  Has  the  Constitution 
delegated  to  Congress  the  power  to  coerce  a  State  into 
submission  which  is  attempting  to  withdraw,  or  has 
actually  withdrawn  from  the  Confederacy?  .  .  . 

Buchanan  argues  against  this  power,  then 
says: 


178  AMERICAN    HISTORY    STUDIES. 

But  if  we  possessed  this  power,  would  it  be  wise  to 
exercise  it  under  existing  circumstances?  .  .  . 

The  fact  is,  that  our  Union  rests  upon  public  opinion 
and  can  never  be  cemented  by  the  blood  of  its  citi- 
zens shed  in  civil  war.  If  it  cannot  live  in  the  affec- 
tions of  the  people,  it  must  one  day  perish.  Congress 
possesses  many  means  of  preserving  it  by  conciliation; 
but  the  sword  was  not  p-laced  in  their  hand  to  pre- 
serve it  by  force.  He  then  proposes  that  Congress 
submit  these  amendments  to  the  States,  as  follows: 

I.  An  express  recognition  of  the  right  of  property  in 

slaves  in  the  States.    .    .    . 

II.  The  duty  of  protecting  the  right  in  all  the  com- 
mon territories.    .    .    . 

III.  The  like  recognition  of  the  right  of  the  master  to 
have  his  slave,  who  has  escaped  from  one  State 
to  another,  restored  and  "delivered  up"  to  him.    .    . 

— Buchanan's   Message,   Dec.   3.    I860,    Cited  in   Curtis' 
Buchanan,  II,  pp.  337  f. 

Passing  to  the  South  we  see  that  acts  are 
substituted  for  words.  Let  us  see  what  South 
Carolina  did. 

AN  .ORDINANCE    to   dissolve   the   Union    between    the 
State  of  South  Carolina  and  other  States  united 
with  her  under  the  compact  entitled   "The   Con- 
stitution of  the  United  States  of  America." 
We,  the  people  of  the  State  of  South  Carolina  in 
convention  assembled,  do  declare  and  ordain,    .    .     . 
that  the  ordinance  adopted  by  us  in  convention  on  the 
twenty-third  day  of  May  [1788]  whereby  the  Constitu- 
tion  of   the   United   States   of  America   was    ratified, 
.    .    .    .     [and  amendments]  are  hereby  repealed;  and 
that  the  Union  now  subsisting  between   South  Caro- 
lina and  other  States,  under  the  name  of  the  "United 
States  of  America,"  is  hereby  dissolved. 

Dene  at  Charleston  the  twentieth  day  of  December, 
[I860].  D.  F.  JAMESON, 

Delegate  from  Barnwell  and  President  of  the  Conven- 
tion, and  Others. 
Attest: 
BENJAMIN  F.  ARTHUR, 

Clerk  of  the  Convention. 
— Rebellion  Records,  Series  I,  vol.  I,  p.  110. 


THE    CIVIL    WAR   AND    RECONSTRUCTION.      179 

Two  days  after  the  passage  of  the  above  ordi- 
nance the  State  of  South  Carolina  gave  the 
following  commission  to  Robert  W.  Barnwell, 
James  H.  Adams,  and  James  L.  Orr: 

Whereas  the  convention  of  the  People  of  South  Caro- 
lina, .  .  .  did  .  .  .  order  that  their  commis- 
sioners .  .  .  proceed  to  Washington,  authorized, 
.  .  .  to  treat  with  the  Government  of  the  United 
States  foi^the  delivery  .of  the  forts,  magazines,  light- 
houses, and  other  real  estate  .  .  .  within  the  limits 
of  South  Carolina;  and  also  for  an  apportioning  of  the 
public  debt  and  for  a  division  of  the  other  property 
held  by  the  government  of  the  United  States  as  agent 
of  the  confederated  States,  of  which  South  Carolina 
was  recently  a  member;  and  generally  to  negotiate 
.  .  .  for  the  continuance  of  peace  and  amity  between 
this  commonwealth  and  the  Government  at  Wash- 
ington: .  .  . — Ibid,  p.  111. 

On  December  28,  1860,  the  above  named  com- 
missioners of  South  Carolina  sent  a  communi- 
cation to  the  president,  from  which  the  follow- 
in  extract  is  made: 

.  .  .  In  the  execution  of  this  trust  it  is  our  duty 
to  furnish  you  .  .  .  with  an  official  copy  of  the 
ordinance  of  secession,  by  which  the  State  of  South 
Carolina  has  resumed  the  powers  she  delegated  to  the 
Government  of  the  United  States  and  has  declared  her 
perfect  sovereignty  and  independence.  It  would  also 
have  been  our  duty  to  have  informed  you  that  we 
were  ready  to  negotiate  with  you  upon  all  such  ques  • 
tions  as  are  necessarily  raised  by  the  adoption  of  this 
ordinance,  and  that  we  were  prepared  to  enter  upon 
this  negotiation  with  the  earnest  desire  to  avoid  all 
unnecessary  and  hostile  collision,  and  so  to  inaugurate 
our  new  relations  as  to  secure  mutual  respect,  general 
advantage,  and  a  future  of  good  will  and  harmony. 
.  .  .  But  the  events  of  the  last  twenty-four  hours 
render  such  an  assurance  impossible.  [This  was  the 
taking  possession  of  Ft.  Sumter  by  Major  Anderson.] 

And  in  conclusion  we  would  urge  upon  you  the  im- 
mediate withdrawal  of  the  troops  from  the  harbor 


180  AMERICAN    HISTORY    STUDIES. 

of  Charleston.  Under  present  circumstances  they  are 
a  standing  menace  which  render  negotiations  impossi- 
ble, and  .  .  .  threaten  speedily  to  bring  to  a  bloody 
issue  questions  which  ought  to  be  settled  with  tem- 
perance and  judgment. — Ibid,  pp.  109-110. 

During  the  winter  of  1860-'61  several  plans 
were  proposed  to  secure  such  amendments  to 
the  Constitution  as  would  satisfy  the  various 
sections  of  the  country,  and  thus  restore  har- 
mony to  the  Union.  Congress  tried  its  hand 
and  outlined  six  propositions,  which,  however, 
were  never  sent  to  the  states. 

On  the  request  of  the  State  of  Virginia,  a 
convention  of  delegates  from  the  States  of  the 
Union  was  held  in  Washington,  commencing 
February  4th,  and  closing  on  the  27th,  of  the 
same  month,  which  proposed  that  Congress 
submit  «even  Constitutional  amendments  to  the 
States  for'their  action.  Delegates  were  present 
from  Maine,  New  Hampshire,  Vermont,  Massa- 
chusetts, Rhode  Island,  Connecticut,  New  York, 
New  Jersey,  Pennsylvania,  Delaware,  Maryland, 
Virginia,  North  Carolina,  Tennessee,  Kentucky, 
Missouri,  Ohio,  Indiana,  Illinois,  Iowa,  and  Kan- 
sas, including,  as  delegates,  such  men  as  W.  P. 
Fessenden,  L.  M.  Morrill,  Geo.  S.  Boutwell, 
David  Dudley  Field,  David  Wilmot,  Reverdy 
Johnson,  Ex-President  John  Tyler,  S.  P.  Chase, 
James  Harlan,  and  James  Guthrie.  Ex-Presi- 
dent Tyler,  as  presiding  officer,  closed  the  ses- 
sion in  a  speech  from  which  these  words  are 
taken: 

.  .  .  But  I  here  declare  that  it  has  never  been 
my  good  fortune  to  meet  with  an  association  of  more 
intelligent,  thoughtful,  or  patriotic  men.  ...  I  can- 
not but  hope  and  believe  that  the  blessing  of  God  will 
follow  and  rest  upon  the  results  of  your  labors,  and 
that  such  result  will  bring  to  our  country  that  quiet 
and  peace  which  every  patriotic  heart  so  earnestly  de- 
sires. .  .  . 

Gentlemen,  forewell!     I  go  to  finish  the  work  you 


THE    CIVIL    WAR    AND    RECONSTRUCTION.     181 

have  assigned  me,  of  presenting  your  recommendations 
to  the  two  Houses  of  Congress.     ...  "> 

May  you  all  inculcate  among  your  people  a  spirit 
of  mutual  forbearance  and  concession;  and  may  GOD 
protect  our  country  and  the  Union  of  the  States,  which 
was  committed  to  us  as  the  blood-bought  legacy  of  our 
heroic  ancestors. 

Congress  did  not  submit  the  propositions  as 
recommended,  but  instead  the  following  action 
was  taken : 

MR.  CORWIN,  Republican  (O.),  in  1861  moved 
the  following  amendment  to  the  Constitution. 
This  amendment  was  adopted  in  the  House  by 
a  vote  of  133  to  65,  and  in  the  Senate  24  to  12. 
It  reads  as  follows,  and  was  to  be  numbered 
thirteen : 

No  amendment  shall  be  made  to  the  Constitution 
which  will  authorize  or  give  to  Congress  the  power 
to  abolish  or  interfere,  within  any  State,  with  the 
domestic  institutions  thereof,  including  that  of  per- 
sons held  to  labor  or  service  by  the  laws  of  said  State. 

Contrast  this  with  the  13th  Amendment  as 
adopted  in  1865,  and  one  can  conceive  of  the 
immense  distance  that  the  nation  had  traversed 
in  the  four  years  of  the  civil  war. 

Neither  slavery  nor  involuntary  servitude,  except  as 
a  punishment  for  crime  whereof  the  party  shall  have 
been  duly  convicted,  shall  exist  within  the  United 
States,  or  in  any  place  subject  to  their  jurisdiction. — 
Constitution,  Article  XIII  of  Amendments. 

When  Lincoln  was  inaugurated  as  president 
in  1861,  seven  of  the  Southern  States  had 
passed  articles  of  secession,  similar  in  terms  to 
those  of  South  Carolina  cited  above.  Already 
the  States  had  formed  a  preliminary  constitu- 
tion, and  had  chosen  officers  under  it.  Thus 
there  were  two  organized  general  governments 
in  the  same  territory.  Most  of  the  forts  and 
arsenals  in  the  Southern  States  had  been  taken 
possession  of  by  troops  of  the  various  States 


182  AMERICAN    HISTORY    STUDIES. 

in  which  they  were  situated.  Under  such  con- 
ditions Lincoln  delivered  his  Inaugural  Ad- 
dress, from  which  the  following  extracts  are 
taken : 

Apprehension  seems  to  exist  among  the  people  of 
the  Southern  States  that  by  the  accession  of  a  Repub- 
lican administration  their  property  and  their  peace  and 
personal  security  are  to  be  endangered.  There  has 
never  been  any  reasonable  cause  for  such  apprehension. 
Indeed,  the  most  ample  evidence  to  the  contrary  has 
all  the  while  existed  and  been  open  to  their  inspection. 
It  is  found  in  nearly  all  the  published  speeches  of 
him  who  now  addresses  you.  I  do  but  quote  from  one 
of  those  speeches  when  I  declare  that  "I  have  no  pur- 
pose, directly  or  indirectly,  to  interfere  with  the  in- 
stitution of  slavery  In  the  States  where  it  exists.  I 
believe  I  have  no  lawful  right  to  do  so,  and  I  have 
no  inclination  to  do  so"  [I860].  Those  who  nominated 
and  elected  me  did  so  with  full  knowledge  that  I  had 
made  this  and  many  similar  declarations,  and  had 
never  recanted  them.  And,  more  than  this,  they 
placed  In  the  platform  for  my  acceptance,  and  as  a 
law  to  themselves  and  to  me,  the  clear  and  emphatic 
resolution  which  I  now  read: 

"Resolved.  That  the  maintenance  inviolate  of  the 
•rights  of  the  States,  and  especially  the  right  of  each 
State  to  order  and  control  its  own  domestic  institu- 
tions according  to  its  own  judgment  exclusively,  is 
essential  to  that  balance  of  power  on  which  the  per- 
fection and  endurance  of  our  political  fabric  depend, 
and  we  denounce  the  lawless  invasion  by  armed  force 
of  the  soil  of  any  State  or  Territory,  no  matter  under 
what  pretext,  as  among  the  greatest  of  crimes." 

I  now  reiterate  these  sentiments,  and  in  doing  so, 
I  only  press  upon  the  public  attention  the  most  con- 
clusive evidence  of  which  the  case  is  susceptible,  that 
the  property,  peace,  and  security  of  no  section  are 
to  be  in  anywise  endangered  by  the  new  incoming 
administration.  I  add,  too,  that  all  the  protection 
which,  consistently  with  the  Constitution  and  the  laws 
can  be  given,  will  be  cheerfully  given  to  all  the  States 
when  lawfully  demanded,  for  whatever  cause — as  cheer- 
fully to  one  section  as  to  another.  ...  I  take  the 
Official  oath  to-day  with  nq  mental  reservations,  and 


THE   CIVIL    WAR    AND    RECONSTRUCTION.    183 

with  no  purpose  to  construe  the  Constitution  or  laws 
by  any  hypercritical  rules.  .  .  . 

I  hold  that  in  contemplation  of  universal  law  and  of 
the  Constitution,  the  Union  of  these  States  is  perpetual. 
Perpetuity  is  implied,  if  not  expressed,  in  the  funda- 
mental law  of  all  national  governments.  .  .  . 

In  your  hands,  my  dissatisfied  fellow-countrymen, 
and  not  in  mine,  is  the  momentous  issue  of  civil  war. 
The  government  will  not  assail  you.  You  can  have  no 
conflict  without  being  yourselves  the  aggressors.  You 
have  no  oath  registered  in  heaven  to  destroy  the  gov- 
ernment, while  I  shall  have  the  most  solemn  one  to 
"preserve,  protect,  and  defend  it." 

I  am  loath  to  close.  We  are  not  enemies,  but  friends. 
We  must  not  be  enemies.  Though  passions  may  have 
strained,  it  must  not  break  our  bonds  of  affection. 
The  mystic  chords  of  memory,  stretching  from  every 
battle-field  and  patriot  grave  to  every  living  heart 
and  hearthstone  all  over  this  broad  land,  will  yet  swell 
the  chorus  of  the  Union  when  again  touched,  as  surely 
they  will  be,  by  the  better  angels  of  our  nature. — Lin- 
coln's Inaugural  Address,  Works,  II,  pp.  1-7. 

The  first  great  question  to  come  before  the 
new  administration  was  connected  with  provis- 
ioning Fort  Sumter.  March  15  the  president 
consulted  his  cabinet,  with  results  as  follows: 

SEWARD  said: 

...  If  it  were  possible  to  peacefully  provision 
Fort  Sumter,  of  course,  I  should  answer  that  it  would 
be  both  unwise  and  inhuman  not  to  attempt  it.  But 
the  facts  of  the  case  are  known  to  be  that  the  attempt 
must  be  made  with  the  employment  of  military  and 
marine  force,  which  would  provoke  combat,  and  proba- 
bly initiate  civil  war.  .  .  . 

I  have  not  hesitated  to  assume  that  the  Federal 
Government  is  committed  to  maintain,  preserve,  and 
defend  the  Union — peaceably  if  it  can,  forcibly  if  It 
must— to  every  extremity.  .  .  . 

CHASE  wrote: 

.  .  .  If  the  attempt  will  so  inflame  civil  waj  as 
to  involve  an  immediate  necessity  for  the  enlistment 
Of  armies  and  the  expenditure  of  millions,  I  cannot 


184  AMERICAN    HISTORY    STUDIES. 

advise  it  in  the  existing  circumstances  of  the  country 
and  in  the  present  condition  of  the  national  finances. — 
Lincoln's  Works,  II,  pp.  13,  15. 

The  other  members  of  the  cabinet  agreed 
with  the  above  in  general,  except  Secretary 
Blair,  who  was  for  sending  aid  and  provisions. 
On  March  29,  for  the  second  time,  a  written 
opinion  in  regard  to  the  policy  of  sending  an 
expedition  to  relieve  Fort  Sumter,  was  asked 
of  each  member  of  the  cabinet. 

MR.  SEWARD  wrote: 

The  fact  of  preparation  for  such  an  expedition  would 
inevitably  transpire,  and  would  therefore  precipitate 
the  war,  and  probably  defeat  the  object.  I  do  not 
think  it  wise  to  provoke  a  civil  war  beginning  at 
Charleston  and  in  rescue  of  an  untenable  position. 

Therefore,  I  advise  against  the  expedition  in  every 
view.  .  .  . 

MR.  CHASE  wrote: 

.  .  .  I  am  clearly  in  favor  of  maintaining  Fort 
Pickens,  and  just  as  clearly  in  favor  of  provisioning 
Fort  Sumter.  .  .  . 

MR.  WELLES  said: 

I  concur  in  the  proposition  to  send  an  armed  force 
off  Charleston  with  supplies  of  provisions,  and  rein- 
forcements for  the  garrison  of  Fort  Sumter.  .  .  . 

MR.  SMITH  answered: 

.  .  .  Believing  that  Fort  Sumter  cannot  be  suc- 
cessfully defended,  I  regard  its  evacuation  as  a  neces- 
sity, and  I  advise  that  Major  Anderson's  command 
shall  be  unconditionally  withdrawn.  .  .  . 

MR.  BLAIR  wrote: 

.  .  .  It  is  acknowledged  to  ba  possible  to  relieve 
Fort  Sumter.  It  ought  to  be  relieved  without  refer- 
ence to  Pickens  or  any  other  possession.  South  Caro- 
lina is  the  head  and  front  of  this  rebellion,  and  when 
that  State  is  safely  delivered  from  the  authority  of 
the  United  States  it  will  strike  a  blow  against  our  au- 
thority from  which  it  will  take  years  of  bloody  strife 
to  recover.  .  ,  , 


/      THE    CIVIL   WAR   AND   RECONSTRUCTION.    185 

MR.  BATES  wrote: 

[Believed  in  reinforcing  Pickens,  and]  As  to  Fort 
Sumter,  I  think  the  time  is  come  either  to  evacuate 
or  relieve  it. — Lincoln's  Works,  II,  pp.  26-28. 

Read  the  following  letter,  and  think  what  the 
end  was,  and  when  it  came,  nay  when  it  will 
come: 

FORT  SUMTER,  S.  CM  April  12,  1861.— 3:20  A.  M. 
SIR:  By  authority  of  Brigadier-General  Beauregard 
commanding  the  Provisional  Forces  of  the  Confederate 
States,  we  have  the  honor  to  notify  you  that  he  will 
open  the  fire  of  his  batteries  on  Fort  Sumter  in  one 
hour  from  this  time. 

We  have  the  honor  to  be,  very  respectfully,  your 
obedient  servants, 

JAMES  CHESTNET,  JR., 

Aid-de-Camp. 
STEPHEN  D.  LEE, 
Captain  C.  S.  Army,  Aid-de-Camp. 
MAJ.  ROBERT  ANDERSON, 

U.  8.  Army,  Commanding  Fort  Sumter. 
— Rebellion  Records,  I,  p.  H. 

Congress  met  on  the  call  of  the  president, 
July  4.  President  Lincoln  sent  in  his  first,  mes- 
sage on  that  day.  Some  striking  passages  are 
here  quoted: 

Lest  there  be  some  uneasiness  in  the  minds  of  can- 
did men  as  to  what  is  to  be  the  course  of  the  govern- 
ment toward  the  Southern  States  after  the  rebellion 
shall  have  been  suppressed,  the  executive  deems  it 
proper  to  say  it  will  be  his  purpose  then,  as  ever,  to 
be  guided  by  the  Constitution  and  the  laws;  and  that 
.he  probably  will  have  no  different  understanding  of 
the  powers  and  duties  of  the  Federal  Government 
relatively  to  the  rights  of  the  States  and  the  people, 
under  the  Constitution,  than  that  expressed  in  the 
inaugural  address. — Lincoln's  Message  to  Congress  in 
Special  Session,  July  4, 1861,  Works,  II,  p,  65. 

In  the  midst  of  the  war,  on  November  19, 
1863,  President  Lincoln  made  his  Gettysburg 
Address,  an  address  which  probably  will  live 


186  AMERICAN    HISTORY    STUDIES. 

as  long  as  the  English  language  shall  be 
spoken  or  read. 

Fourscore  and  seven  years  ago  our  fathers  brought 
forth  on  this  continent  a  new  nation,  conceived  in 
liberty,  and  dedicated  to  the  proposition  that  all  men 
are  created  equal. 

Now  we  are  engaged  in  a  great  civil  war,  testing 
whether  that  nation,  or  any  nation  so  conceived  and 
BO  dedicated,  can  long  endure.  We  have  come  to  dedi- 
cate a  portion  of  that  field  as  a  final  resting-place  for 
those  who  here  gave  their  lives  that  that  nation  might 
live.  It  is  altogether  fitting  and  proper  that  we  should 
do  this. 

But  in  a  larger  sense  we  cannot  dedicate — we  cannot 
consecrate — we  cannot  hallow — this  ground.  The 
brave  men,  living  and  dead,  who  struggled  here,  have 
consecrated  it  far  above  our  poor  power  to  add  or 
detract.  The  world  will  little  note  nor  long  remem- 
ber what  we  say  here,  but  it  can  never  forget  what  they 
did  here.  It  is  for  us,  the  living,  rather,  to  be  dedi- 
cated here  to  the  unfinished  work  which  they  who 
fought  here  have  thus  far  so  nobly  advanced.  It  Is 
rather  for  us  to  be  here  dedicated  to  the  great  task 
remaining  before  us — that  from  these  honored  dead 
we  take  increased  devotion  to  that  cause  for  which 
they  gave  the  last  full  measure  of  devotion;  that  we 
here  highly  resolve  that  these  dead  shall  not  have 
died  in  vain;  that  this  nation,  under  God,  shall  have 
a  new  birth  of  freedom;  and  that  government  of  the 
people,  by  the  people,  for  the  people,  shall  not  perish 
from  the  earth.— Works,  II,  p.  439. 

THE    EMANCIPATION    PROCLAMATION. 

After  citing  part  of  the  proclamation  of  Sep- 
tember 22,  1862,  Lincoln  says: 

Nor,  therefore,  I,  Abraham  Lincoln,  President  of  the 
United  States,  by  virtue  of  the  power  in  me  vested  as 
commsnder-in-chief  of  the  army  and  navy  of  the 
United  States,  ...  and  as  a  fit  and  necessary  war 
measure  for  suppressing  said  rebellion,  do,  on  this  first 
day  of  January,  in  the  year  of  our  Lord  one  thousand 
eight  hundred  and  sixty-three,  and  in  accordance  with 
my  purpose  so  to  do,  ...  order  and  designate  as 


THE    CIVIL    WAR   AND    RECONSTRUCTION.    187 

the  States  and  parts  of  States  wherein  the  people 
thereof,  respectively,  are  this  day  in  rebellion  against 
the  United  States,  the  following,  to-wit  [named]  .  . 
And  by  virtue  of  the  power,  and  for  the  purpose 
aforesaid,  I  do  order  and  declare  that  all  persons  held 
as  slaves  within  said  designated  States  .  .  .  are 
and  henceforth  shall  be  free.  .  .  . — Lincoln's  Works, 
II,  pp.  287-88. 

The  great  question  of  Reconstruction  began 
to  agitate  the  minds  of  American  statesmen  as 
early  as  1862.  Lincoln's  first  State  paper  on 
this  subject  outlines  his  plans  in  a  general  way. 
Other  quotations  from  later  papers,  which  fol- 
low, will  show  the  development  of  his  idea. 

I  recommend  the  adoption  of  a  joint  resolution  by 
your  honorable  bodies  [of  Congress],  which  shall  be 
substantially  as  follows: 

Resolved,  That  the  United  States  ought  to  co-operate 
with  any  State  which  may  adopt  gradual  abolishment 
of  slavery,  giving  to  such  State  pecuniary  aid,  to  be 
used  by  such  State,  in  its  discretion,  to  compensate 
for  the  inconveniences,  public  and  private,  produced 
by  such  change  of  system.  .  .  . 

The  Federal  Government  would  find  its  highest  in- 
terest in  such  a  measure,  as  one  of  the  most  efficient 
means  of  self-preservation. — Works,  II,  p.  129.  [Both 
branches  of  Congress  adopted  this  resolution  by  large 
majorities.] 

In  December,  1862,  Mr.  Lincoln  recommended 
three  resolutions  to  be  adopted  as  amendments 
to  the  Constitution.  They  were  as  follows: 

I.  "Every  State  wherein  slavery  now  exists  which 
shall  abolish  the  same  therein  at  any  time  or  times 
before  the  first  day  of  January  in  the  year  of  our 
Lord  one  thousand  and  nine  hundred,  shall  receive 
compensation  from  the  United  States  [in  United  States 

bonds]  as  follows for  each  slave  shown  to  have 

been  therein  by  the  eighth  census  of  the  United  States" 
.  .  .  [so  many  dollars]. 

The  measure  is  both  just  and  economical.  In  a  csr- 
tain  sense  the  liberation  of  slaves  is  the  destruction 
of  property — property  acquired  by  descent  or  by  pur- 


188  AMERICAN    HISTORY    STUDIES. 

chase,  the  same  as  any  other  property.  It  is  no  less 
true  for  having  been  often  said,  that  the  people  of  the 
South  are  not  more  responsible  for  the  original  intro- 
duction of  this  property  than  are  the  people  of  the 
North;  and  when  it  is  remembered  how  unhesitatingly 
we  all  use  cotton  and  sugar  and  share  the  profits  of 
dealing  in  them,  it  may  not  be  quite  safe  to  say  that 
the  South  has  been  more  responsible  than  the  North 
for  its  continuance.  If,  then,  for  a  common  object 
this  property  is  to  be  sacrificed,  is  it  not  just  that  it 
be  done  at  a  common  charge? 

II.  "All  slaves  who  shall  have  enjoyed  actual  free- 
dom by  the  chances  of  the  war  at  any  time  before  the 
end   of  the  rebellion,   shall   be   forever  free;    but  all 
owners  of  such  who  shall  not  have  been  disloyal  shall 
be  compensated  for  them  at  the  same  rates  as  are  pro- 
vided  for    States   adopting   abolishment    of   slavery." 

III.  "Congress   may   appropriate   money   and   other- 
wise provide  for  colonizing  free  colored  persons,  with 
their  own  consent  at  any  place  or  places  without  the 
United  States."    .    .    . 

I  cannot  make  it  better  known  than  it  already  is, 
that  I  strongly  favor  colonization.  .  .  . 

This  plan  is  recommended  as  a  means,  not  in  ex- 
clusion of,  but  additional  to,  all  others  for  restoring 
and  preserving  the  national  authority  throughout  the 
Union.  The  subject  is  presented  exclusively  in  its 
economical  aspect.  The  plan  would,  I  am  confident, 
secure  peace  more  speedily,  and  maintain  it  more 
permanently,  than  can  be  done  by  force  alone;  while 
all  it  would  cost,  considering  amounts,  and  manner 
of  payment,  and  times  of  payment,  would  be  easier 
paid  than  will  be  the  additional  cost  of  the  war,  if  we 
rely  solely  upon  force.  It  is  much— very  much — that 
it  would  cost  no  blood  at  all.  .  .  .  Other  means 
may  succeed;  this  could  not  fail.  The  way  is  plain, 
peaceful,  generous,  just,  ...  a  way  which,  if  fol- 
lowed, the  world  will  forever  applaud,  and  God  musf 
forever  bless.— /bid,  pp.  270-277. 

And  it  is  suggested  as  not  Improper  that,  in  con- 
structing a  loyal  State  government  in  any  State,  the 
name  of  the  State,  the  boundary,  the  subdivisions,  the 
constitution,  and  the  general  code  of  laws,  as  before 
the  rebellion,  be  maintained,  subject  only  to  the  modi- 


THE    CIVIL    WAR    AND    RECONSTRUCTION.     189 

fications  made  necessary  by  the  conditions  hereinbe- 
fore stated,  and  such  others,  if  any,  not  contravening 
said  conditions,  and  which  may  be  deemed  expedient. — 
Lincoln's  Proclamation  of  Amnesty  and  Reconstruction, 
Aug.  12,  1863,  Works,  II,  p.  //.','/. 

The  policy  of  emancipation,  and  of  employing  black 
soldiers,  gave  to  the  future  a  new  aspect,  about  which 
hope,  and  fear,  and  doubt  contended  in  uncertain  con- 
flict. According  to  our  political  system,  as  a  matter 
of  civil  administration,  the  General  Government  had 
no  lawful  power  to  effect  emancipation  in  any  State, 
and  for  a  long  time  it  had  been  hoped  that  the  re- 
bellion could  be  suppressed  without  resorting  to  it  as 
a  military  measure.  It  was  all  the  while  deemed 
possible  that  the  necessity  for  it  might  come,  and 
that  if  it  should,  the  crisis  of  the  contest  would  then 
be  presented.  It  came,  and,  as  was  anticipated,  it 
was  followed  by  dark  and  doubtful  days.  Eleven 
months  having  now  passed,  we  are  permitted  to  take 
another  review.  The  rebel  borders  are  pressed  still 
further  back.  .  .  .  Maryland  and  Missouri,  neither 
of  which  three  years  ago  would  tolerate  any  restraint 
upon  the  extension  of  slavery  into  new  Territories, 
only  dispute  now  as  to  the  best  mode  of  removing  it 
within  their  own  limits.  .  .  .  No  servile  insurrec- 
tion, or  tendency  to  violence  or  cruelty,  has  marked 
the  measures  of  emancipation  and  arming  the  blacks. 
These  measures  have  been  much  discussed  in  foreign 
countries,  and  contemporary  with  such  discussion  the 
tone  of  public  sentiment  there  is  much  improved. 
.  .  . — Lincoln's  Annual  Message,  Dec.  8,  1863,  Works, 
II,  pp.  453,  454- 

Lincoln's  plan  of  Reconstruction,  as  formu- 
lated December,  1863,  continued  to  be  attacked 
till  the  end  of  his  life.  Two  days  before  his 
death  he  made  his  last  public  address,  which 
was  largely  given  over  to  a  discussion  of  this 
question.  In  part  he  said: 

We  meet  this  evening  not  in  sorrow,  but  in  gladness 
of  heart.  The  evacuation  of  Petersburg  and  Richmond, 
and  the  surrender  of  the  principal  insurgent  army, 
give  hope  of  a  righteous  and  speedy  peace,  whose  joy- 
ous expression  cannot  be  restrained.  .  .  . 


190  AMERICAN    HISTORY    STUDIES. 

By  these  recent  successes  the  reinauguration  of  the 
national  authority — reconstruction— which  has  had  a 
large  share  of  thought  from  the  first,  is  pressed  much 
more  closely  on  our  attention.  It  is  fraught  with  great 
difficulty.  .  .  .  Nor  is  it  a  small  additional  embar- 
rassment that  we,  the  loyal  people,  differ  among  our- 
selves as  to  the  mode,  etc.  .  .  .  [He  then  discusses 
what  he  has  done  in  Louisiana.]  [Concerning  the 
question  whether  the  States  were  ever  out  of  the 
Union]  I  have  purposely  forborne  any  public  expres- 
sion on  it.  As  it  appears  to  me,  that  question  has  not 
been,  not  -yet  is,  a  practically  material  one.  .  .  . 

We  are  all  agreed  that  the  seceded  States,  so-called, 
are  out  of  their  proper  practical  relation  with  the 
Union,  and  that  the  sole  object  of  the  government 
.  .  .  is  to  again  get  them  into  that  proper  practical 
relation.  I  believe  that  it  is  not  only  possible,  but  in 
fact  easier,  to  do  this  without  deciding  or  even  con- 
sidering whether  these  States  have  ever  been  out  of 
the  Union,  than  with  it.  Finding  themselves  safely 
at  home,  it  would  be  utterly  immaterial  whether  they 
had  ever  been  abroad.  .  .  . 

I  repeat  the  question:  Can  Louisiana  be  brought 
into  proper  practical  relation  with  the  Union  sooner 
by  sustaining  or  by  discarding  her  new  State  govern- 
ment? ...  So  new  and  unprecedented  is  the  whole 
case  that  no  exclusive  and  inflexible  plan  can  safely 
be  prescribed  as  to  details  and  collaterals.  .  .  . 
Important  principles  may  and  must  be  inflexible.  In 
the  present  situation,  as  the  phrase  goes,  it  may  be 
my  duty  to  make  some  new  announcement  to  the 
people  of  the  South.  I  am  considering,  and  shall  not 
fail  to  act  when  satisfied  that  action  will  be  proper. — 
Works,  II,pp.  672-675. 

RECONSTRUCTION  UNDER  PRESIDENT  JOHNSON. 

President  Johnson  began  on  May  29,  1865, 
to  carry  out  a  system  of  reconstruction  which 
he  always  claimed  was  the  one  Lincoln  had 
planned.  On  that  date  he  issued  an  amnesty 
proclamation  to  all  those  lately  in  rebellion, 
with  fourteen  excepted  classes. 

To  the  end,  therefore,  that  the  authority  of  the  Gov- 


THE  CIVIL  WAR  AND  RECONSTRUCTION.   191 

eminent  of  the  United  States  may  be  restored,  and  that 
peace,  order,  and  freedom  may  be  established,  I,  An- 
drew Johnson,  President  of  the  United  States,  do 
proclaim  and  declare  that  I  hereby  grant  to  all  persons 
who  have,  directly  or  indirectly,  participated  in  the 
existing  rebellion  [exceptions]  amnesty  and  pardon, 
with  restoration  of  all  rights  of  property,  except  as  to 
slaves,  ....  upon  the  condition  .  .  .  that  such 
person  subscribe  the  following  oath.  ...  I,  - 

do  solemnly  swear    .    .     .     that  I  will  henceforth 

faithfully  support,  protect,  and  defend  the  Constitution 
of  the  United  States.  .  .  . — McPherson.  Reconstruc- 
tion, pp.  9-10. 

On  the  same  day  he  appointed  William  W. 
Holden  Provisional  Governor  of  North  Carolina, 
with  powers  and  duties  as  follows: 

.  .  .  I,  Andrew  Johnson,  ...  do  hereby  ap- 
point William  W.  Holden  Provisional  Governor  of  the 
State  of  North  Carolina,  whose  duty  it  shall  be  .  . 
to  prescribe  such  rules  and  regulations  as  may  be  nec- 
essary and  proper  for  convening  a  convention,  [and 
also]  with  authority  to  exercise  .  .  .  all  the  powers 
necessary  and  proper  to  enable  such  loyal  people  of 
the  State  ...  to  restore  said  state  to  its  constitu- 
tional relations  to  the  Federal  Government.  .  .  . 

Similar  action  was  taken  for  the  other  States. 

The  president,  by  proclamation,  also  provided 
for  the  recall  of  the  proclamations  establish- 
ing martial  law,  blockade,  the  suspension  of 
the  Habeas  Corpus,  etc.  In  other  words,  dur- 
ing the  summer  of  1865  he  had  taken  almost 
all  the  steps  necessary  to  restore  the  States  to 
their  "practical  relation"  to  the  Union,  by  De- 
cember, when  Congress  should  come  together. 
Almost  immediately  on  its  assembling  there 
were  signs  that  there  was  to  be  a  struggle  be- 
tween Congress  and  the  President.  However 
the  Congressional  plan  was  not  fully  matured 
and  enacted  into  law  before  March  2,  1867.  In 
the  meantime  the  State  governments  set  up 
under  President  Johnson's  plan  continaed  to 


192  ^AMERICAN    H1STORV    STUDIES. 

exist  with  some  power,  but  subject  to  suspen- 
sion whenever  Congress  might  direct.  The 
first  part  of  the  Congressional  plan  with  which 
the  President  agreed  was  the  passage  of  the 
13th  amendment.  The  second  part  was  the 
14th  amendment.  The  great  struggle,  how- 
ever, came  over  the  following  law,  which  con- 
tains the  substance  of  the  Congressional  plan 
of  Reconstruction: 

WHEKEAS,  No  legal  State  governments  or  adequate 
protection  for  life  or  property  now  exists  in  the  rebel 
States  [named],  therefore, 

Be  it  enacted,  etc.,  That  said  rebel  States  shall  be  di- 
vided into  military  districts  and  made  subject  to  the 
military  authority  of  the  United  States  .  .  .  [Five 
districts  provided  for.] 

SEC.  2.  That  it  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  President  to 
assign  to  the  command  of  each  of  said  districts  an 
officer  of  the  army  .  .  .  and  to  detail  a  sufficient 
military  force  to  enable  such  officer  to  perform  his 
duties  and  enforce  his  authority.  .  .  . 

SEC.  3.  That  it  shall  be  the  duty  of  each  officer  .  . 
to  suppress  insurrection,  disorder  .  .  .  and  to  this 
end  he  may  allow  civil  tribunals  to  take  jurisdiction 
of  and  to  try  offenders,  or,  when  in  his  judgment  it 
may  be  necessary  for  the  trial  of  offenders,  he  shall 
have  power  to  organize  military  commissions  .  .  . 
for  that  purpose.  .  .  . 

SEC.  4.  [Speedy  trials  and  no  unusual  punishments.] 

SEC.  5.  That  when  the  people  of  any  one  of  the  rebel 
States  shall  have  formed  a  constitution  of  government 
in  conformity  with  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States  in  all  respects,  framed  by  a  convention  of  dele- 
gates elected  by  the  male  citizens  of  said  State,  twenty- 
one  years  old  and  upward,  of  whatever  race,  color,  or 
previous  condition,  .  .  .  except  such  as  may  be 
disfranchised  for  participation  in  the  rebellion,  .  .  . 
and  when  such  constitution  shall  provide  that  the 
elective  franchise  shall  be  enjoyed  by  all  such  per- 
sons as  have  the  qualifications  herein  stated  for  elec- 
tors .  .  .  and  when  ratified  by  a  majority  vote 
[accepted  by  Congress]  and  when  said  State  .  .  . 
shall  have  adopted  the  amendment,  .  .  .  known  as 
fourteen,  and  when  said  article  shall  have  become  a 


THE    CIVIL    WAft    AND    Ulico: \\STU U(W.' ION.    19o 

part  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States    .    .     . 
[then  the  State  admitted  to  privileges  of  other  States]. 
SEC.  6.  [Any  existing  government  provisional  only. 
.    .    .] — McPherson,  Reconstruction,  pp.  191,  192. 

This  bill  and  all  other  supplementary  bills 
were  vetoed  by  President  Johnson,  but  all  were 
passed  over  his  veto,  and  thus  became  the  law 
of  the  land.  By  1870,  under  the  series  of  acts 
of  which  the  one  cited  is  the  most  important, 
all  the  rebel  States  were  again  in  full  operation, 
and  represented  in  Congress.  The  final  outcome 
of  the  struggle  was  the  impeachment  of  Presi- 
dent Johnson.  The  Senate  failed  to  convict. 
Congress  triumphed,  however,  in  its  policy. 

QUESTIONS. 

1.  Was  Lincoln  anxious  to  avoid  war?  2.  Point  out 
the  real  difference  he  notes  between  the  North  and 
the  South.  -3.  Did  he  wish  the  Republicans  to  yield 
their  ground?  4.  Was  it  possible  for  the  two  sections 
to  agree?  5.  What  phrase  had  Lincoln  used  before 
this  to  characterize  the  nature  of  the  struggle?  6.  How 
had  Seward  characterized  it?  7.  How  did  Lincoln  feel 
toward  the  South?  8.  Give  quotations  to  prove  your 
position.  9.  What  would  be  "coercion"  of  a  State  ac- 
cording to  Lincoln?  10.  What  did  he  think  the  nation 
might  do?  11.  How  did  Lincoln  mean  to  treat  slavery 
in  the  States?  12.  What  did  he  mean  by  leaving  them 
alone?  13.  Did  Lincoln  seem  to  think  war  was  neces- 
sary? 14.  What  was  the  matter?  15.  What  advice 
did  he  give  to  the  people  of  North  and  South?  16. 
Could  they  take  it?  17.  Are  Lincoln's  positions  in 
these  extracts  and  in  those  given  last  month  consistent 
with  one  another? 

1.  How  did  President  Buchanan  explain  the  troubles? 
2.  How  could  the  difficulties  be  settled?  3.  Did  he  be- 
lieve then  in  the  "irrepressible  conflict"  doctrine?  4. 
Which  proved  to  be  right?  5.  Did  he  believe  the  South 
might  secede  on  account  of  President  Lincoln's  elec- 
tion? 6.  Did  he  recognize  the  right  of  secession  at  all? 

7.  How  could  the  States  get  a  redress  of  grievances? 

8.  Should   anything  be  done  to  permit  secession?    9. 
Why    not?    10.  How    did    he    propose    to    settle    the 
trouble?    11.  Compare  ideas  of  Lincoln  and  Buchanan. 

1.  What  State  passed  the  first  Ordinance  of  Seces- 
sion? 2.  What  relation  to  the  action  of  the  State  in 
1788?  3.  Who  acted  for  the  State?  4.  Apparently  did 
the  State  expect  war?  5.  If  not,  why  not?  6.  What 
did  the  State  offer  to  do?  7.  What  was  to  be  the 
future  relation?  8.  Judged  by  the  extracts  given  last 


194  AMERICAN    HISTOftY    STtJDlfiS. 

month,  why  did  secession  take  place?  9.  What  at- 
tempt did  Virginia  make  to  prevent  secession?  10. 
How  far  were  many  of  the  Republicans,  Lincoln  in- 
cluded, ready  to  go  to  prevent  war?  11.  Compare  the 
proposed  Thirteenth  amendment  with  the  existing 
one. 

1.  How  did  Lincoln  attempt  to  satisfy  the  Soutn  that 
secession  was  not  justifiable?  2.  How  did  he  propose 
to  treat  them?  3.  Who  would  be  responsible  for  war 
if  it  came?  4.  Commit  the  last  paragraph  of  his  in- 
augural. 5.  Can  you  find  another  paragraph  more  elo- 
quent than  this? 

1.  How  did  the  Cabinet  feel  in  regard  to  aiding  Fort 
Sumter?  2.  Why  such  feelings?  3.  Any  changes  in 
sentiment  between  March  15  and  March  29?  4.  What 
is  the  most  important  letter  in  this  number?  Why? 

1.  How  did  Lincoln  propose  to  treat  the  Southern 
States  after  the  Rebellion  was  suppressed?  2.  What 
important  thought  in  the  Gettysburg  speech?  3.  Un- 
der what  power  did  Lincoln  claim  the  right  to  issue 
the  Emancipation  Proclamation?  4.  Would  Congress 
have  had  the  same  right?  5.  How  did  Lincoln  propose 
to  secure  the  abolishment  of  slavery?  6.  When  would 
slavery  have  been  ended  by  his  plan?  7.  What  argu- 
ments did  he  use  to  sustain  his  plan?  8.-  How  did  the 
country  first  receive  the  Emancipation  Proclamation? 
9.  What  did  Lincoln  believe  in  regard  to  the  States 
having  ever  been  out  of  the  Union?  10.  When  did 
Lincoln  last  speak  <joncerning  Reconstruction?  11. 
What  policy  did  President  Johnson  claim  to  follow  in 
regard  to  Reconstruction?  12.  What  was  the  great 
difference  between  the  Congressional  plan  of  Recon- 
struction and  President  Johnson's?  13.  What  do  you 
understand  by  Reconstruction?  14.  Name  the  prin- 
cipal elements  in  the  Congressional  plan.  15.  Who 
could  vote  in  reconstructing  the  seceded  States  under 
President  Johnson's  plan  under  the  Congressional 
plan?  16.  Write  an  essay  on  President  Lincoln  in  the 
war,  using  only  the  material  here  given. 


American  History  Studies 


No.  9. 


MAY,  1898. 


A  STUDY  IN  AMERICAN  FOREIGN  RELATIONS  AND 
DIPLOMACY, 


SELECTIONS  MADE  FROM  THE  SOURCES 


H.  W.  OALDWELL, 

UNIVERSITY  OF  NEBRASKA. 


J.  H.  MILLER,  Publisher, 
LINCOLN,  NEBRASKA. 


Yearly  Subscription, '  ±0  cents.  Single  Copy,  6  cent*. 


PUBLISHED  MONTHLY,  EXCEPT  JULY  AND  AUGUST. 

Entered  as  second-class  matter  at  the  Post  Office,  Lincoln,  Nebraska. 
U.  8.  A. 


AMERICAN  HISTORY  STUDIES. 


STUDY  IN  AMERICAN   FOREIGN   RELA- 
TIONS AND  DIPLOMACY. 

[INCE  1815  the  development  of  American 
political  history  has  been  only  slightly 
modified  by  foreign  influences.  To  a  great 
extent  the  reason  for  this  may  be  found  in  the 
geographical  situation  of  the  United  States. 
Separated  by  wide  oceans  from  any  other  im- 
portant nation,  they  have  been  enabled  to 
pursue  a  self-directive  course,  almost  as  freely 
as  if  located  on  an  island  in  the  midst  of  the 
sea.  American  diplomatic  history  may  be  said 
to  begin  on  November  29,  1775,  when  a  motion 
was  made  to  appoint  a  committee  to  correspond 
with  "our  friends  in  England  and  elsewhere.'' 
At  the  moment  of  writing  this  introduction  our 
nation  is  in  the  midst  of  the  excitement  due  to 
the  Cuban  question,  and  the  imminence  of  war 
with  Spain  on  account  of  it.  In  1775  Spain 
looked  upon  us  as  a  band  of  rebels,  if  she  con- 
descended to  think  of  us  at  all.  Now  the 
United  States  has  more  than  four  times  the 
population,  and  many  times  the  wealth,  of  the 
haughty  nation  which  then  owned  and  con- 
trolled the  larger  part  of  this  western  hemi- 
sphere The  importance  and  complexity  of  the 
problems  arising  from  our  foreign  relations  in 
1776  were  almost  as  nothing  compared  with 
those  that  confront  us  to-day;  yet  it  is  un- 
doubtedly true  that  the  course  of  our  develop- 
ment then  was  much  more  influenced  by  our 
diplomatic  policy  than  it  is  now.  The  really 
great  problems  are  internal  ones,  and  the  Amer- 


FOREIGN  RELATIONS  AND  DIPLOMACY.   197 

ican  people  should  ever  remember  this.  The 
diplomatists  as  well  as  the  statesmen  of  the 
Revolutionary  period  were  men  of  vigor  and 
power.  Franklin,  Jay,  J.  Adams,  and  Jefferson 
proved  themselves  able  to  meet  on  equal  terms 
the  best  men  that  France  and  England  pos- 
sessed. A  little  later  we  find  Clay,  J.  Q.  Adams, 
and  especially  A.  Gallatin,  contending  with  the 
English  ambassadors  over  the  terms  of  the 
treaty  of  peace  in  1814,  and  winning  for  our 
nation  a  decided  victory.  Monroe  and  Adams 
in  the  events  connected  with  the  promulgation 
of  the  so-called  Monroe  doctrine  proved  them- 
selves able  and  skilled  diplomatists.  Webster, 
in  the  Webster-Ashburton  treaty  of  1842,  gained 
the  good  will  of  Europe  for  the  skill  and  dignity 
with  which  he  managed  the  American  cause. 

It  is  possible  in  one  article  to  touch  only  a 
very  few  of  the  many  events  in  which  our  nation 
has  come  into  contact  with  other  nations.  I 
have  chosen  to  take  a  few  important  points  and 
give  them  a  fuller  treatment,  rather  than  to 
attempt  to  cover  the  whole  ground.  The  reader, 
therefore,  must  remember  that  these  extracts 
do  not  touch  even  many  of  the  most  interesting 
questions  which  have  confronted  our  statesmen 
in  the  past.  Yet  it  is  hoped  that  they  may 
arouse  an  interest  so  that  more  of  the  docu- 
mentary matter  pertaining  to  our  external  rela- 
tions may  be  called  for  and  used. 

November  29,  1775,  congress  passed  the  fol- 
lowing resolution,  which  may  be  said  to  be  the 
first  word  ever  uttered  by  the  American  people 
with  regard  to  foreign  affairs: 

Resolved,  That  a  committee  of  five  be  appointed  for 
the  sole  purpose  of  corresponding  with  our  friends  in 
Great  Britain,  Ireland,  and  other  parts  of  the  world; 
and  that  they  lay  their  correspondence  hefore  Con- 
gress when  directed. 

The  members  chosen  were  Mr.  Harrison,  Dr.  Frank- 


198  AMERICAN    HISTORY    STUDIES. 

lin,  Mr.  Johnson,  Mr.  Dickinson,  and  Mr.  Jay.— Secret 
Journals  of  the  Congress  of  the  Confederation,  vol.  II, 
p.  5. 

We  next  find  oar  diplomatic  history  set  forth 
in  the  resolutions  which  follow:' 

[June  11,  1776.]  Resolved,  That  a  committee  be  ap- 
pointed to  prepare  a  plan  of  treaties  to  be  proposed  to 
foreign  powers. — Ibid,  p.  1ft 5. 

[September  17,  1776.]  Congress  took  into  considera- 
tion the  plan  of  treaties  to  be  proposed  to  foreign 
nations,  with  the  amendments  agreed  to  by  the  com- 
mittee of  the  whole;  and  thereupon. 

Resolved,  That  the  following  plan  of  a  treaty  be 
proposed  to  his  most  Christian  majesty:  [Plan.] — 
Ibid,  p.  6. 

Resolved,  That  Thursday  next  be  assigned  for  ap- 
pointing commissioners  to  transact  the  business  of 
the  United  States  at  the  court  of  France. — Ibid,  p.  SI. 

Resolved,  That  three  be  appointed.  The  ballots  be- 
ing taken,  Mr.  B.  Franklin,  Mr.  S.  Deane,  and  Mr.  T. 
Jefferson,  were  elected. — Ibid,  p.  SI. 

[September  28,  1776.]  Resolved,  That  the  commis- 
sioners should  live  in  such  a  style  and  manner,  at  the 
court  of  France,  as  they  may  find  suitable  and  neces- 
sary to  support  the  dignity  of  their  publick  character, 
keeping  an  account  of  their  expenses,  which  shall  be 
reimbursed  by  the  Congress  of  the  United  States  of 
America.— Ibid,  p.  S3. 

The  first  alliance  made  by  the  United  States 
contains,  among  others,  the  following  clauses: 

The  most  Christian  king,  and  the  United  States  of 
North  America  .  .  .  having  this  day  concluded  a 
treaty  of  amity  and  commerce,  .  .  .  have  thought 
it  necessary  to  take  into  consideration  the  means  of 
strengthening  those  engagements,  and  of  rendering 
them  useful  to  the  safety  and  tranquility  of  the  two 
parties;  particularly  In  case  Great  Britain,  in  resent- 
ment .  .  .  should  break  the  peace  with  France. 
.  .  .  And  his  majesty  and  the  United  States,  having 
resolved,  in  that  case,  to  join  their  counsels  and  ef- 
forts against  the  enterprises  of  their  common  enemy, 


FOREIGN  RELATIONS  AND  DIPLOMACY.   199 

.    .    .    have    .    .    .    concluded    and    determined    on 

the  following  articles: 

•          •          •          •          •          •          •          •••          t 

AET.  II.  The  essential  and  direct  end  of  the  pres- 
ent defensive  alliance  is,  to  maintain  effectually  the 
liberty,  sovereignty,  and  independence  absolute  and 
unlimited  of  the  said  United  States,  as  well  in  matters 
of  government  as  of  commerce. 

ART.  XI.  The  two  parties  guarantee,  mutually,  from 
the  present  time  and  forever,  against  all  other  powers, 
to-wit,  the  United  States  to  his  most  Christian  majesty, 
the  present  possessions  of  the  crown  of  France  in 
America,  as  well  as  those  which  it  may  acquire  by  the 
future  treaty  of  peace;  and  his  most  Christian  majesty 
guarantees,  on  his  part,  to  the  United  States,  their 
liberty,  sovereignty,  and  independence,  absolute  and 
unlimited,  as  well  in  matters  of  government  as  of  com- 
merce, and  also  their  possessions,  and  the  additions 
or  conquests  that  their  confederation  may  obtain  dur- 
ing the  war,  from  any  of  the  dominions  now  or  here- 
tofore possessed  by  Great  Britain  in  North  America, 
.  .  .  the  whole  as  their  possession  shall  be  affixed 
and  assured  to  the  said  states  at  the  moment  of  the 
cessation  of  their  present  war  with  England. 

Done  at  Paris,  this  6th  day  of  February,  one  thou- 
sand seven  hundred  and  seventy-eight. 

C.  A.  GEBABD.    [L.  s.] 

B.  FBANKLIN.  [L.  s.] 
SILAS  DEANE.  [L.  s.] 
ABTHUB  LEE.  [L.  s.] 

—Secret  Journal  of  Congress,  vol.  II,  pp.  82,  86,  88. 

The  extracts  below  from  the  treaty  of  peace 
of  1783  will  give  much  valuable  information  if 
duly  studied: 

In  the  name  of  the  Most  Holy  and  Undivided  Trinity. 

It  having  pleased  the  Divine  Providence  to  dispose 
the  hearts  of  .  ,  .  .  King  George  the  Third,  .  .  . 
and  of  the  United  States  of  America,  to  forget  all  past 
misunderstandings  .  .  .  have  agreed  upon  and 
confirmed  the  following  articles: 

AKT.    I.  His    Britannic    Majesty    acknowledges    the 


200  AMERICAN    HISTORY    STUDIES. 

United  States,  viz.:  New  Hampshire,  Massachusetts, 
Rhode  Island  and  Providence  Plantations,  Connecticut, 
New  York,  New  Jersey,  Pennsylvania,  Delaware,  Mary- 
land, Virginia,  North  Carolina,  South  Carolina,  and 
Georgia,  to  be  free,  sovereign,  and  independent  States; 
that  he  treats  with  them  as  such;  and  for  himself,  his 
heirs  and  successors,  relinquishes  all  claims  to  the 
government,  propriety,  and  territorial  rights  of.  the 
same,  and  every  part  thereof. 

ABT.  VII.  The  navigation  of  the  river  Mississippi, 
from  its  source  to  the  ocean,  shall  forever  remain  free 
and  open  to  the  subjects  of  Great  Britain,  and  the 
citizens  of  the  United  States. 

(Signed.)  D.  HABTLEY. 

JOHN   ADAMS. 
B.  FRANKLIN. 
JOHN  JAY. 
—United  States  Statutes  at  Large,  vol.  VIII,  pp.  81,  83. 

The  treaty  of  peace  of  1783  was  completed 
only  after  a  long  and  intense  struggle  between 
the  commissioners  of  the  two  countries.  John 
Adams,  in  his  diary,  has  left  us  a  clear  picture 
of  the  daily  life  and  disputes,  not  only  between 
the  English  and  American  commissioners,  but 
also  among  the  American  commissioners  them- 
selves. The  negotiations  had  to  do  with  many 
subjects.  These  extracts  in  regard  to  the  right 
to  fish  off  the  banks  of  Newfoundland  introduce 
us  to  their  daily  "squabbles"  as  well  as  any 
that  may  be  chosen: 

Upon  the  return  of  the  other  gentlemen,  Mr. 
Strachey  proposed  to  leave  out  the  word  "right"  of 
fishing,  and  make  it  "liberty."  Mr.  Fitzherbert  said 
the  word  "right"  was  an  obnoxious  expression.  Upon 
this  I  rose  up  and  said,  "Gentlemen,  is  there  or  can 
there  be  a  clearer  right?  In  former  treaties,  that  of 
Utrecht  and  that  of  Paris, — France  and  England  have 
claimed  the  right,  and  used  the  word.  When  God 
Almighty  made  the  banks  of  New  Foundland,  at  three 
hundred  leagues  distance  from  the  people  of  America, 
and  at  six  hundred  leagues  distance  from  those  of 


FOREIGN  RELATIONS  AND  DIPLOMACY.   201 

France  and  England,  did  He  not  give  as  good  a  right 
to  the  former  as  to  the  latter?  If  Heaven  in  the  crea- 
tion gave  a  right  it  is  ours  at  least  as  much  as  yours. 
If  occupation,  use,  and  possession,  give  a  right,  we 
have  it  as  clearly  as  you.  If  war,  and  blood,  and 
treasure  give  a  right,  ours  is  as  good  as  yours.  We 
have  been  constantly  fighting  in  Canada,  Cape  Breton, 
and  Nova  Scotia,  for  the  defense  of  this  fishing,  and 
have  expended  beyond  all  proportion  more  than  you. 
If,  then,  the  right  cannot  be  denied,  why  should  it 
not  be  acknowledged,  and  put  out  of  dispute?  Why 
should  we  leave  room  for  illiterate  fishermen  to 
wrangle  and  chicane? — Life  and  Works  of  John  Adams, 
vol.  Ill,  pp.  S33,  834. 

I  forgot  to  mention  that,  when  we  were  upon  the 
fishery,  and  Mr.  Strachey  and  Mr.  Fitzherbert  were 
urging  us  to  leave  out  the  word  "right"  and  substitute 
"liberty,"  I  told  them  at  last,  in  answer  to  their  pro- 
posal, to  agree  upon  all  other  articles,  and  leave  that 
of  the  fishery  to  be  adjusted  at  the  definitive  treaty.  I 
never  could  put  my  hand  to  any  articles  without  sat- 
isfaction about  the  fishery;  that  Congress  had,  three 
or  four  years  ago,  when  they  did  me  the  honor  to  give 
me  a  commission  to  make  a  treaty  of  commerce  with 
Great  Britain,  given  me  positive  instructions  not  to 
make  any  such  treaty  without  an  article  in  the  treaty 
of  peace  acknowledging  our  right  to  the  fishery;  that 
I  was  happy  that  Mr.  Laurens  was  now  present,  who, 
I  believed,  was  in  Congress  at  the  time,  and  must 
remember  it.  Mr.  Laurens  upon  this  said,  with  great 
firmness,  that  he  was  in  the  same  case,  and  could 
never  give  his  voice  for  any  articles  without  this.  Mr. 
Jay  spoke  up,  and  said,  it  could  not  be  a  peace,  it 
would  only  be  an  insidious  truce  without  it. — Ibid, 
p.  335. 

I  have  not  attempted,  in  these  notes,  to  do  justice 
to  the  arguments  of  my  colleagues,  all  of  whom 
were,  throughout  the  whole  business,  when  they  at- 
tended, very  attentive  and  able,  especially  Mr.  Jay, 
to  whom  the  French,  if  they  knew  as  much  of  his  ne- 
gotiations as  they  do  of  mine,  would  very  justly  give 
the  title  with  which  they  have  inconsiderately  deco- 
rated me,  that  of  "Le  Washington  de  la  negotiation":  a 
very  flattering  compliment  indeed,  to  which  I  have  not 


202  AMERICAN    HISTORY    STUDIES. 

a  right,  but  sincerely  think  it  belongs  to  Mr.  Jay.— 
Ibid,  p.  339. 

The  X.  Y.  Z.  episode  in  American  history  is 
perhaps  well  known,  but  it  is  doubtful  if  many 
of  our  students  ever  read  an  extract  from  the 
letters  of  our  ministers  in  France, — Pinckney, 
Marshall,  and  Gerry, — which,  when  published, 
roused  the  American  people  to  the  highest  pitch 
of  excitement,  and  led  to  the  production  of  "Hail 
Columbia." 

Citizen  Minister  [Mr.  Monroe]:  I  hasten  to  lay  be- 
fore the  Executive  Directory  the  copies  of  your  letters 
of  recall,  and  of  the  letter  of  credence  of  Mr.  Pinck- 
ney, whom  the  President  of  the  United  States  has  ap- 
pointed to  succeed  you,  in  the  quality  of  Minister 
Plenipotentiary  of  the  United  States  near  the  French 
Republic.  The  Directory  has  charged  me  to  notify 
you  "that  it  will  not  acknowledge  nor  receive  another 
Minister  Plenipotentiary  from  the  United  States,  until 
after  the  redress  of  grievances  demanded  of  the  Ameri- 
can Government,  and  which  the  French  Republic  has 
a  right  to  expect  from  it." — Benton,  Abridgment  of  De- 
bates in  Congress,  vol.  II,  p.  390. 

The  following  extracts  may  make  more  evi- 
dent why  the  cry  "Millions  for  defense,  not  a 
cent  for  tribute,"  became  such  a  phrase  to  con- 
jure with  in  the  years  1797-1800: 

In  the  evening  of  the  same  day,  M.  X  called  on 
General  Pinckney,  and  after  having  sat  some  time 
.  .  .  whispered  him  that  he  had  a  message  from 
M.  Talleyrand  to  communicate  when  he  was  at  leisure. 
General  Pinckney  immediately  withdrew  with  him 
into  another  room,  and  said  .  .  .  that  he  had  been 
acquainted  with  M.  Talleyrand,  .  .  .  and  that  he 
was  sure  that  he  had  a  great  regard  for  [America] 
and  its  citizens;  and  was  very  desirous  that  a  recon- 
ciliation be  brought  about  with  France,  that,  to  effect 
that  end,  he  was  ready,  if  it  was  thought  proper,  to 
suggest  a  plan,  confidentially,  that  M.  Talleyrand 
expected  would  answer  the  purpose.  General  Pinck- 
ney said  he  would  be  glad  to  hear  it.  M.  X  replied 


FOREIGN    RELATIONS    AND    DIPLOMACY.      203 

that  the  Directory,  and  particularly  two  of  the  mem- 
bers of  it,  were  exceedingly  irritated  at  some  passages 
of  the  President's  speech,  and  desired  that  they  should 
be  softened,  and  that  this  step  would  be  necessary 
previous  to  our  reception.  That,  besides  this,  a  sum 
of  money  was  required  for  the  pocket  of  the  Directory 
and  Ministers,  which  would  be  at  the  disposal  of  M. 
Talleyrand;  and  that  a  loan  would  also  be  insisted  on. 
M.  X  said  if  we  acceded  to  these  measures,  M.  Talley- 
rand had  no  doubt  that  all  our  differences  with  France 
might  be  accommodated.  On  inquiry,  M.  X.  could  not 
point  out  the  particular  passages  of  the  speech  that 
had  given  offence,  nor  the  quantum  of  the  loan,  but 
mentioned  that  the  douceur  for  the  pocket  was  twelve 
hundred  thousand  livres,  about  fifty  thousand  pounds 
sterling.— Ibid,  p.  393. 

About  twelve  we  received  another  visit  from  M. 
X.  He  immediately  mentioned  the  great  event  an- 
nounced in  the  papers,  and  then  said,  that  some  pro- 
posals from  us  had  been  expected  on  the  subject  on 
which  we  had  before  conversed;  that  the  Directory 
were  becoming  impatient,  and  would  take  a  decided 
course  with  regard  to  America,  if  we  could  not  soften 
them. 

M.  X.  again  expatiated  on  the  power  and  violence 
of  France;  he  urged  the  danger  of  our  situation,  and 
pressed  the  policy  of  softening  them,  and  of  thereby 
obtaining  time.  M.  X.  again  returned  to  the  subject 
of  money.  Said  he,  you  do  not  speak  to  the  point;  it 
is  money;  it  is  expected  that  you  will  offer  money. 
We  said  that  we  had  spoken  to  that  point  very  ex- 
plicitly; we  had  given  an  answer.  No,  said  he,  you 
have  not;  what  is  your  answer?  We  replied  no;  no; 
not  a  sixpence.— Oct.  27,  1797.— Ibid,  p.  395. 

This  extract  from  McMaster's  "History  of  the 
American  People"  shows  the  excitement,  and 
narrates  the  events  which  led  to  the  production 
of  "Hail  Columbia": 

Politics  ruled  the  hour.  The  city  was  full 
of  excited  Federalists,  who  packed  the  theatre  night 
after  night  for  no  other  purpose  that  to  shout  them- 
selves hoarse  over  the  "President's  March."  He  [the 


204  AMERICAN    HISTORY    STUDIES. 

player  at  the  theatre]  determined  to  make  use  of  this 
fact.  He  would  take  the  March,  find  some  one  to  write 
a  few  patriotic  stanzas  to  suit  it,  and,  on  the  night 
of  his  benefit,  sing  them  to  the  house.  Some  Federal- 
ists were  consulted,  were  pleased  with  the  idea,  and 
named  Joseph  Hopkinson  as  the  best  man  fitted  to 
write  the  words.  He  consented  and  in  a  few  hours 
"Hail,  Columbia"  was  produced. — McMasta;  History  of 
the  People  of  the  United  States,  vol.  II,  p.  378. 

This  is  an  example  of  the  "poetry"  that  the 
X.  Y.  Z.  affair  called  forth.  There  is  an  abun- 
dance of  like  matter  in  the  newspapers  of  the 
day: 

The  President,  with  good  intent, 

Three  envoys  sent  to  Paris, 
But  Cinq  Tetes  would  not  with  'em  treat, 
Of  honor  France  so  base  is. 

Yankee  Doodle  (mind  the  tune) 

Yankee  Doodle  Dandy. 
If  Frenchmen  come    .    .    . 
We'll  spank  'em  hard  and  handy 

Thro'  X.  and  Y.,  and  Madame  Sly, 

They  made  demand  for  money; 
For,  as  we're  told,  the  French  love  gold 
As  stinging  bees  love  honey. 
Chorus. 

» 
Bold  Adams  did  in  '76 

Our  Independence  sign,  sir, 
And  he  will  not  give  up  a  jot, 
Tho'  all  the  world  combine,  sir. 
Chorus. 

— Ibid,   p.   384. 

We  may  get  a  few  thoughts  in  regard  to  the 
causes  of  the  war  of  1812  from  the  message  of 
President  Madison  of  June  1,  1812,  sent  to  Con- 
gress recounting  the  acts  of  the  British  govern- 
ment during  the  years  1803-1812.  He  says,  in 
part: 

British  cruisers  have  been  in  the  continued  practice 
pf  violating  the  American  flag  on  the  great  highway 


FOREIGN  RELATIONS  AND  DIPLOMACY.    205 

of  nations,  and  of  seizing  and  carrying  off  persons 
sailing  under  it,  not  in  the  exercise  of  a  belligerent 
right  founded  on  the  law  of  nations  against  an  enemy, 
but  C.f  a  municipal  prerogative  over  British  subjects. 

British  cruisers  have  been  in  the  practice  also  of 
violating  the  rights  and  the  peace  of  our  coasts.  They 
hover  over  and  harass  our  entering  and  departing 
commerce.  To  the  most  insulting  pretensions  they 
have  added  the  most  lawless  proceedings  in  our  very 
harbors,  and  have  wantonly  spilt  American  blood 
within  the  sanctuary  of  our  territorial  jurisdiction. 

Under  pretended  blockades,  without  the  presence 
of  an  adequate  force  and  sometimes  without  the  prac- 
ticability of  applying  one,  our  commerce  has  been 
plundered  in  every  sea,  the  great  staples  of  our  country 
have  been  cut  off  from  their  legitimate  markets,  and 
a  destructive  blow  aimed  at  our  agricultural  and  mari- 
time interests.  .  .  . 

Such  is  the  spectacle  of  injuries  and  indignities 
which  have  been  heaped  on  our  country,  and  such  the 
crisis  which  its  unexampled  forbearance  and  concilia- 
tory efforts  have  not  been  able  to  avert. 

Other  counsels  have  prevailed.  Our  moderation  and 
conciliation  have  had  no  other  effect  than  to  encourage 
perseverance  and  to  enlarge  pretensions.  We  behold 
our  seafaring  citizens  still  the  daily  victims  of  lawless 
violence,  committed  on  the  great  common  and  high- 
way of  nations,  even  within  sight  of  the  country  which 
owes  them  protection. 

Whether  the  United  States  shall  continue  passive 
under  these  progressive  usurpations  and  these  accumu- 
lating wrongs,  or,  opposing  force  to  force  in  defense 
of  their  national  rights  shall  commit  a  just  cause  into 
the  hands  of  the  Almighty  Disposer  of  events,  avoid- 
ing all  connections  which  might  entangle  it  in  the 
contest  or  views  of  other  powers,  and  preserving  a  con- 
stant readiness  to  concur  in  an  honorable  re-estab- 
lishment of  peace  and  friendship,  is  a  solemn  question 
which  the  Constitution  wisely  confides  to  the  legis- 


206  AMERICA*   HISTORY    STUDIES. 

lative  department  of  the  Government.  In  recom- 
mending it  to  their  early  deliberations  I  am  happy  in 
the  assurance  that  the  decision  will  be  worthy  the 
enlightened  and  patriotic  councils  of  a  virtuous,  a 
free,  and  a  powerful  nation. — Richardson,  Messages  and 
Papers  of  the  Presidents,  vol.  I,  pp.  500,  50%. 

Henry  Clay,  in  a  speech  in  the  House  of  Rep- 
resentatives on  the  New  Army  Bill,  January  8, 
1813,  gives  us  a  good  picture  of  the  point  of 
view  of  the  "Young  Republicans"  of  the  West 
and  South: 

The  war  was  declared,  because  Great  Britain  arro- 
gated to  herself  the  pretension  of  regulating  our  for- 
eign trade,  under  the  delusive  name  of  retaliatory  or- 
ders in  council — a  pretension  by  which  she  undertook 
to  proclaim  to  American  enterprise,  "thus  far  shalt 
thou  go  and  no  further" — orders  which  she  refused  to 
revoke,  after  the  alleged  cause  of  their  enactment  had 
ceased;  because  she  persisted  in  th'e  practice  of  im- 
pressing American  seamen;  because  she  had  instigated 
the  Indians  to  commit  hostilities  against  us;  and  be- 
cause she  refused  indemnity  for  her  past  injuries  upon 
our  commerce.  I  throw  out  of  the  question  other 
wrongs.  The  war  in  fact  was  announced,  on  our  part, 
to  meet  the  war  which  she  was  waging  on  her  part. 
So  undeniable  were  the  causes  of  the  war,  so  power- 
fully did  they  address  themselves  to  the  feelings  of  the 
whole  American  people,  that  when  the  bill  was  pend- 
ing before  this  house,  gentlemen  in  the  opposition, 
although  provoked  to  debate,  would  not,  or  could  not, 
utter  one  syllable  against  tt. — Mallory,  Life  of  Clay, 
vol.  I,  p.  304. 

And  who  is  prepared  to  say,  that  American  seamen 
shall  be  surrendered  as  victims  to  the  British  princi- 
ple of  impressment?  And,  sir,  what  is  this  principle? 
She  contends,  that  she  has  a  right  to  the  services  of 
her  own  subjects,  and  that,  in  the  exercise  of  this 
right,  she  may  lawfully  impress  them,  even  although 
she  finds  them  in  American  vessels,  upon  the  high 
seas,  without  her  jurisdiction.  Now  I  deny  that  she 
has  any  right,  beyond  her  jurisdiction,  to  come  on 
board  our  vessels,  upon  the  high  seas,  for  any  other 
purpose,  than  in  pursuit  of  enemies,  or  their  goods, 


FOREIGN    RELATIONS    AND    DIPLOMACY.      207 

of  goods  contraband  of  war.  But  she  further  contends, 
that  her  subjects  cannot  renounce  their  allegiance  to 
her,  and  contract  a  new  obligation  to  other  sover- 
eigns. \  do  not  mean  to  go  into  the  general  question 
of  the  right  of  expatriation.  If,  as  is'  contended,  all 
nations  deny  it,  all  nations  at  the  same  time  admit  and 
practice  the  right  of  naturalization.  Great  Britain 
herself  does  this.  Great  Britain,  in  the  very  case  of 
foreign  seamen,  imposes,  perhaps,  fewer  restraints 
upon  naturalization  than  any  other  nation.  Then,  if 
subjects  cannot  break  their  original  allegiance,  they 
may,  according  to  universal  usage,  contract  a  new 
allegiance.  What  is  the  effect  of  this  double  obliga- 
tion? Undoubtedly,  that  the  sovereign,  having  pos- 
session of  the  subject,  would  have  the  right  to  the 
services  of  the  subject. — Ibid,  p.  307. 

If  Great  Britain  desires  a  mark  by  which  she  can 
know  her  own  subjects,  let  her  give  them  an  ear  mark. 
The  colors  that  float  from  the  mast-head  should  be 
the  credentials  of  our  seamen.  There  is  no  safety  to 
us,  and  the  gentlemen  have  been  shown  it,  but  in  the 
rule,  that  all  who  sail  under  the  flag  (not  being  ene- 
mies) are  protected  by  the  flag.  It  is  impossible  that 
this  country  should  ever  abandon  the  gallant  tars, 
who  have  won  for  us  such  splendid  trophies. — Ibid, 
p.  308. 

The  disasters  of  the  war  admonish  us,  we  are  told, 
of  the  necessity  of  terminating  the  contest.  If  our 
achievements  by  land  have  been  less  splendid  than 
those  of  our  intrepid  seamen  by  water,  it  is  not  be- 
cause the  American  soldier  is  less  brave.  On  the 
one  element,  organization,  discipline,  and  a  thorough 
knowledge  of  their  duties,  exist,  on  the  part  of  the 
officers  and  their  men.  On  the  other,  almost  every- 
thing is  yet  to  be  acquired.  We  have,  however,  the 
consolation  that  our  country  abounds  with  the  richest 
materials,  and  that  in  no  instance,  when  engaged  in 
action,  have  our  arms  been  tarnished. — Ibid,  p.  312. 

What  cause,  Mr.  Chairman,  which  existed  for  de- 
claring the  war  has  been  removed?  We  sought  in- 
demnity for  the  past  and  security  for  the  future.  The 
orders  in  council  are  suspended,  not  revoked;  no  com- 
pensation for  spoliations;  Indian  hostilities,  which 
were  before  secretly  instigated,  are  now  openly  en- 


208  AMERICAN  HISTORY   STUDIES. 

couraged;  and  the  practice  of  impressment  unremit- 
tingly persevered  in  and  insisted  upon.  Yet  the  ad- 
ministration has  given  the  strongest  demonstrations 
of  its  love  of  j>eace.  On  the  twenty-ninth  of  June, 
less  than  ten  days  after  the  declaration  of  war,  the 
secretary  of  the  state  writes  to  Mr.  Russell,  authoriz- 
ing him  to  agree  to  an  armistice,  upon  two  conditions 
only,  and  what  are  they?  That  the  orders  in  council 
should  be  repealed,  and  the  practice  of  impressing 
American  seamen  cease,  those  already  impressed  being 
released.  The  proposition  was  for  nothing  more  than 
a  real  truce;  that  the  war  should  in  fact  cease  on  both 
sides.— Ibid,  p.  313. 

No,  sir,  the  administration  has  erred  in  the  steps 
which  it  has  taken  to  restore  peace,  but  its  error  has 
been,  not  in  doing  too  little,  but  in  betraying  too  great 
a  solicitude  for  that  event.  An  honorable  peace  is 
attainable  only  by  an  efficient  war.  My  plan  would  be 
to  call  out  the  ample  resources  of  the  country,  give 
them  a  judicious  direction,  prosecute  the  war  with 
the  utmost  vigor,  strike  wherever  we  can  reach  the 
enemy,  at  sea  or  on  land,  and  negotiate  the  terme  of 
peace  at  Quebec  or  Halifax.  We  are  told  that  Eng- 
land is  a  proud  and  lofty  nation,  which,  disdaining  to 
wait  for  danger,  meets  it  half  way.  Haughty  as  she 
is,  we  once  triumphed  over  her,  and,  if  we  do  not  listen 
to  the  councils  of  timidity  and  despair,  we  shall  again 
prevail.  In  such  a  cause,  with  the  aid  of  Providence, 
we  must  come  out  crowned  with  success,  but  if  we 
fail,  let  us  fail  like  men,  lash  ourselves  to  our  gallant 
tars,  and  expire  together  in  one  common  struggle, 
fighting  for  Free  Trade  and  Seamen's  Rights.— Ibid, 
p.  S14. 

The  Seminole  war  and  Jackson's  invasion  of 
Florida  in  1817-18  led  ultimately  to  political 
animosities  among  American  statesmen  that  in- 
fluenced in  no  slight  manner  the  development 
of  its  political  history.  The  following  extracts 
from  Clay's  speeches  on  the  Seminole  war  will 
throw  some  light  on  the  hatred  which  in  later 
years  existed  between  him  and  General  Jackson. 
In  part  he  said,  January  17,  1819 : 


FOREIGN    RELATIONS   AND    DIPLOMACY.      209 

General  Jackson  says  that  when  he  received  that 
letter,  he  no  longer  hesitated.  No,  sir,  he  did  no 
longer  hesitate.  He  received  it  on  the  twenty-third, 
he  was  in  Pensacola  on  the  twenty-fourth,  and  imme- 
diately after  set  himself  before  the  fortress  of  San 
Carlos  de  Barancas,  which  he  shortly  reduced.  Veni, 
vidi,  vici.  Wonderful  energy!  Admirable  prompti- 
tude! Alas,  that  it  had  not  been  an  energy  and  a 
promptitude  within  the  pale  of  the  Constitution  and 
according  to  the  orders  of  the  chief  magistrate. — Mai- 
lory,  Life  of  Clay,  vol.  I,  p.  440. 

That  the  President  thought  the  seizure  of  the  Span- 
ish posts  was  an  act  of  war,  is  manifest  through  his 
opening  message,  in  which  he  says  that,  to  have  re- 
tained them,  would  have  changed  our  relations  with 
Spain,  to  do  which  the  power  of  the  executive  was 
incompetent,  Congress  alone  possessing  it.  The  Presi- 
dent has,  in  this  instance,  deserved  well  of  his  coun- 
try. He  has  taken  the  only  course  which  he  could 
have  pursued,  consistent  with  the  Constitution  of  the 
land.  And  I  defy  the  gentleman  to  make  good  both 
his  positions,  that  the  general  was  right  in  taking,  and 
the  President  right  in  giving  up,  the  posts. — Ibid, 

P.  W- 

Recall  to  your  recollection  the  free  nations  which 
have  gone  before  us,  where  are  they  now? 
"Gone  glimmering  through  the  dreams  of  things  that 

were, 
A  school  boy's  tale,  the  wonder  of  an  hour." 

And  how  have  they  lost  their  liberties? 

I  hope  not  to  be  misunderstood;  I  am  far  from 
intimating  that  General  Jackson  cherishes  any  de- 
signs inimical  to  the  liberties  of  the  country.  I  be- 
lieve his  intentions  to  be  pure  and  patriotic.  I  thank 
God  that  he  would  not,  but  I  thank  Him  still  more  that 
he  could  not  if  he  would,  overturn  the  liberties  of  the 
republic.  But  precedents,  if  bad,  are  fraught  with 
the  most  dangerous  consequences. — Ibid,  p.  J^S. 

I  hope  our  happy  form  of  government  is  to  be  per- 
petual. But,  if  it  is  to  be  preserved,  it  must  be  by 
the  practice  of  virtue,  by  justice,  by  moderation,  by 
magnanimity,  by  greatness  of  soul,  by  keeping  a 


210  AMERICAN    HISTORY    STUDIES. 

watchful  and  steady  eye  on  the  executive;  and,  above 
all,  by  holding  to  a  strict  accountability  the  military 
branch  of  the  public  force. 

Beware  how  you  forfeit  this  exalted  character. 
Beware  how  you  give  a  fatal  sanction,  in  this  infant 
period  of  our  republic,  scarcely  yet  two  score  years 
old,  to  military  insubordination.  Remember  that 
Greece  had  her  Alexander,  Rome  her  Caesar,  England 
her  Cromwell,  France  her  Bonaparte,  and  that  if  we 
would  escape  the  rock  on  which  they  split,  we  must 
avoid  their  errors. — Ibid,  p.  444. 

The  purchase  of  Florida  was  not  made  with- 
out a  word  of  criticism  concerning  its  terms 
from  Clay.  In  a  speech  on  the  treaty,  April  3, 
1820,  he  uses  these  words: 

We  wanted  Florida,  or  rather  we  sJiall  want  it;  or, 
to  speak  more  correctly,  we  want  nobody  else  to  have 
it.  We  do  not  desire  it  for  immediate  use.  It  fills  a 
space  in  our  imagination,  and  we  wish  it  to  complete 
the  arrondissement  of  our  territory.  It  must  certainly 
come  to  us.  The  ripened  fruit  will  not  more  surely 
fall.  Florida  is  enclosed  in  between  Alabama  and 
Georgia,  and  cannot  escape.  Texas  may.  Whether 
we  get  Florida  now,  or  some  five  or  ten  years  hence, 
it  is  of  no  consequence,  provided  no  other  power  gets 
it. — Mallory,  p.  457. 

The  next  [proposition]  was,  that  it  was  inexpedient 
to  cede  Texas  to  any  foreign  power.  They  constituted, 
in  his  opinion,  a  sacred  inheritance  of  posterity,  which 
we  ought  to  preserve  unimpaired.  He  wished  it  was, 
if  it  were  not,  a  fundamental  and  inviolable  law  of  the 
land,  that  they  should  be  inalienable  to  any  foreign 
power.  It  was  quite  evident  that  it  was  in  the  order 
of  Providence;  that  it  was  an  inevitable  result  of  the 
principle  of  population,  that  the  whole  of  this  conti- 
nent, including  Texas,  was  to  be  peopled  in  process  of 
time.  The  question  was,  by  whose  race  shall  it  be 
peopled?  In  our  hands  it  will  be  peopled  by  freemen 
and  the  sons  of  freemen,  carrying  with  them  our  lan- 
guage, our  laws,  and  our  liberties;  establishing  on  the 
prairies  of  Texas,  temples  dedicated  to  the  simple  and 
devout  modes  of  worship  of  God  incident  to  our  relig- 


FOREIGN    RELATIONS   AND    DIPLOMACY. 

ion,  and  temples  dedicated  to  that  freedom  which  we 
adore  next  to  Him.  In  the  hands  of  others,  it  may  be- 
come the  habitation  of  despotism  and  of  slaves,  sub- 
ject to  the  vile  dominion  of  the  inquisition  and  of 
superstition.— Ibid,  p.  459. 

The  Monroe  Doctrine,  so-called,  has  become 
so  vast  that  a  volume  is  needed  to  present  it  in 
its  entirety.  However,  it  is  believed  that  the 
following  extracts  taken  from  the  messages  of 
the  Presidents  and  other  documents  will  serve 
to  throw  more  light  on  the  subject  than  can  be 
obtained  from  our  ordinary  school  history, 
hence  they  are  given  in  the  hope  that  every 
teacher  will  try  to  find  more  illustrative  matter. 
The  first  extracts  are  from  the  articles  of  agree- 
ment of  the  members  of  the  Holy  Alliance: 

Their  Majesties  the  Emperor  of  Austria,  the  King  of 
Prussia,  and  the  Emperor  of  Russia,  in  consequence  of 
the  great  events  [of  years  1789-1815]  .  .  .  have, 
therefore,  agreed  to  the  following  articles: 

ART.  I.  In  conformity  to  the  words  of  the  Holy  Scrip- 
tures, which  command  all  men  to  regard  one  another 
as  brethren,  the  three  contracting  monarchs  will  re- 
main united  by  the  bonds  of  a  true  and  indissoluble  fra- 
ternity; .  .  .  and  they  will  lend  one  another  .  .  . 
assistance,  aid,  and  support;  and,  regarding  the  subjects 
and  armies,  as  the  fathers  of  their  families,  they  will 
govern  them  in  the  spirit  of  fraternity  with  which  they 
are  animated,  for  the  protection  of  religion,  peace,  and 
justice. 

AKT.  II.  Therefore,  the  only  governing  principle  be- 
tween the  above  mentioned  governments  .  .  . 
shall  be  that  of  rendering  reciprocal  services;  of  testi- 
fying, .  .  .  the  mutual  affection  with  which  they 
ought  to  be  animated;  of  considering  all  as  only  the 
members  of  one  Christian  nation,  the  three  allied 
powers  looking  upon  themselves  as  delegated  by  Provi- 
dence to  govern  three  branches  of  the  same  family,  to- 
wit:  Austria,  Prussia,  and  Russia,  confessing  .  .  . 
that  the  Christian  nations  .  .  .  have  really  no 
other  sovereign  than  Him  to  whom  alone  power  be- 
long? of  right.  .  .  .  Their  majesties,  therefore, 
recommend,  ...  to  fortify  themselves  every  day 


212  AMERICAN   HISTORY    STUDIES. 

more  and  more  in  the  principles  and  exercise  of  the 
duties  which  the  Divine  Savior  has  pointed  out  to  us. 
ART.  III.  All  powers  which  wish  solemnly  to  profess 
the  sacred  principles  which  have  delegated  this  act, 
and  who  shall  acknowledge  how  important  it  is  to  the 
happiness  of  nations,  too  long  disturbed,  that  these 
truths  shall  henceforth  exercise  upon  human  destinies, 
all  the  influence  which  belongs  to  them,  shall  be  re- 
ceived with  as  much  readiness  as  affection,  into  this 
holy  alliance. — Cited  in  American  Diplomacy,  Snow, 
p.  24S. 

In  1822,  at  a  congress  held  at  Verona,  the 
Holy  Allies  added  secretly  the  following  clauses 
to  their  articles  of  agreement  cited  above: 

The  undersigned,  specially  authorized  to  make  some 
additions  to  The  Treaty  of  the  Holy  Alliance,  .  .  . 
have  agreed  as  follows: 

ART.  I.  The  high  contracting  powers  being  con- 
vinced that  the  system  of  representative  government  is 
equally  as  incompatible  with  the  monarchical  princi- 
ples as  the  maxim  of  the  sovereignty  of  the  people 
with  the  divine  right,  engage  mutually,  ...  to 
use  all  their  efforts  to  put  an  end  to  the  system  of 
representative  governments,  in  whatever  country  it 
may  exist  in  Europe,  and  to  prevent  its  being  intro- 
duced in  those  countries  where  it  is  not  yet  known. 

ART.  II.  As  it  cannot  be  doubted  that  the  liberty  of 
the  press  is  the  most  powerful  means  used  by  the  pre- 
tended supporters  of  the  rights  of  nations,  to  the  detri- 
ment of  those  Princes,  the  high  contracting  parties 
promise  reciprocally  to  adopt  all  proper  measures  to 
suppress  it,  not  only  in  their  own  states,  but,  also,  in 
the  rest  of  Europe. — Snow,  American  Diplomacy,  p.  £$5. 

The  Monroe  Doctrine  may  be  seen  to  have 
been  foreshadowed  long  before  its  official  pro- 
mulgation by  Monroe  by  a  perusal  of  the  fol- 
lowing quotation: 

Our  detached  and  distant  situation  invites  and  en- 
ables us  to  pursue  a  different  course.  If  we  remain 
one  people,  under  an  efficient  government,  the  period 
is  not  far  off  when  we  may  defy  material  injury  from 
external  annoyance;  when  we  may  take  such  an  atti- 


FOREIGN    RELATIONS    AND    DIPLOMACY.      213 

tude  as  will  cause  the  neutrality  we  may  at  any  time 
resolve  upon  to  be  scrupulously  respected;  when  bel- 
ligerent nations,  under  the  impossibility  of  making 
acquisitions  upon  us,  will  not  lightly  hazard  the  giving 
us  provocation;  when  we  may  choose  peace  or  war  as 
our  interests,  guided  by  justice,  shall  counsel. — Wash- 
ington's  Farewell  Address. 

Jefferson,  in  1808,  speaks  as  follows: 
We  consider  their  interests  and  ours  as  the  same, 
and  that  the  object  of  both   must  be  to  exclude  all 
European  influence  from  this  hemisphere. — Jefferson's 
Works,  vol.  V,  p.  381. 

In  1823  Jefferson  writes  to  Monroe  in  these 
words: 

Our  first  and  fundamental  maxim  should  be,  never 
to  entangle  ourselves  in  the  broils  of  Europe.  Our 
second,  never  to  suffer  Europe  to  intermeddle  with  cis- 
Atlantic  affairs.  America,  North  and  South,  has  a 
set  of  interests  distinct  from  those  of  Europe,  and 
peculiarly  her  own.  She  should  therefore  have  a  sys- 
tem of  her  own,  separate  and  apart  from  that  of  Eu- 
rope. While  the  last  is  laboring  to  become  the  domi- 
cile of  despotism,  our  endeavor  should  surely  be  to 
make  our  hemisphere  that  of  freedom. — Jefferson's 
Works,  vol.  VII,  p.  315. 

Monroe  formulates  the  doctrine  in  this  way 
in  his  celebrated  message  of  December  2,  1823: 

In  the  discussion  to  which  this  interest  has  given 
rise,  and  in  the  arrangements  by  which  they  may 
terminate,  the  occasion  has  been  adjudged  proper  for 
asserting,  as  a  principle  in  which  the  rights  and  in- 
terests of  the  United  States  are  involved,  that  the 
American  continents,  by  the  free  and  independent 
condition  which  they  have  assumed  and  maintain, 
are  henceforth  not  to  be  considered  as  subjects  for 
future  colonization  by  any  European  powers. — Rich- 
ardson, Messages  and  Papers  of  the  Presidents,  vol.  II, 
p.  207  f. 

The  political  system  of  the  allied  powers  is  essen- 
tially different  in  this  respect  from  that  of  America. 
This  difference  proceeds  from  that  which  exists  in 
their  respective  governments.  And  to  the  defense  of 


214  AMERICAN    HISTORY    STUDIES. 

our  own,  .  .  .  this  whole  nation  is  devoted.  We 
owe  it,  therefore,  to  candor,  and  to  the  amicable  rela- 
tions existing  between  the  United  States  and  those 
powers,  to  declare,  that  we  should  consider  any  at- 
tempt on  their  part  to  extend  their  system  to  any 
portion  of  this  hemisphere  as  dangerous  to  our  peace 
and  safety.  —  Ibid. 

In  the  war  between  those  new  governments  and 
Spain,  we  declared  our  neutrality  at  the  time  of  their 
recognition,  and  to  this  we  have  adhered,  and  shall 
continue  to  adhere,  provided  no  change  shall  occur 
which,  in  the  judgment  of  the  competent  authorities 
of  this  government,  shall  make  a  corresponding 
change  on  the  part  of  the  United  States  indispensable 
to  their  security.  —  Ibid. 

It  is  impossible  that  the  allied  powers  should  extend 
their  political  system  to  any  portion  of  either  con- 
tinent without  endangering  our  peace  and  happiness; 
nor  can  anyone  believe  that  our  southern  brethren,  if 
left  to  themselves,  would  adopt  it  of  their  own  accord. 
It  is  equally  impossible,  therefore,  that  we  should  be- 
hold such  interposition,  in  any  form,  with  indiffer- 
ence. — 


President  Cleveland,  in  his  message  to  Con- 
gress December  17,  1895,  applied  the  Monroe 
Doctrine  to  the  Venezuelan  question.  Between 
the  farewell  message  of  Washington  and  the 
present  moment  the  idea  has  been  in  process  of 
development.  Trace  its  evolution. 

[It  is  claimed]  that  the  reasons  justifying  an  appeal 
to  the  doctrine  enunciated  by  President  Monroe  are 
generally  inapplicable  "to  the  state  of  things  in  which 
we  live  at  the  present  day,"  and  especially  inapplica- 
ble to  a  controversy  involving  the  boundary  line  be- 
tween Great  Britain  and  Venezuela. 

Without  attempting  extended  arguments  in  reply 
to  this  position,  it  may  not  be  amiss  to  suggest  that 
the  doctrine  upon  which  we  stand  is  strong  and  sound 
because  its  enforcement  is  important  to  our  peace  and 
safety  as  a  nation  and  is  essential  to  the  integrity  of 
our  free  institutions  and  the  tranquil  maintenance 
pf  our  distinctive  form  of  government.  It  was  tn- 


FOREIGN    RELATIONS   AND    DIPLOMACY.      215 

tended  to  apply  to  every  stage  of  our  national  life  and 
cannot  become  obsolete  while  our  republic  endures. 

It  is  also  suggested  in  the  British  reply  that  we 
should  seek  not  to  apply  the  Monroe  doctrine  to  the 
pending  dispute,  because  it  does  not  embody  any 
principle  of  international  law  which  "is  founded  on 
the  general  consent  of  nations."  .  .  . 

Practically,  the  principle  for  which  we  contend  has 
peculiar  if  not  exclusive  relations  to_  the  United  States. 
It  may  not  have  been  admitted  in  so  many  words  to 
the  code  of  international  law,  but  since  in  international 
councils  every  nation  is  entitled  to  the  rights  belong- 
ing to  it,  if  the  enforcement  of  the  Monroe  doctrine 
is  something  we  may  justly  claim,  it  has  its  place  in 
the  code  of  international  law  as  certainly  and  securely 
as  if  it  were  specifically  mentioned.  .  .  .  The 
Monroe  doctrine  finds  its  recognition  in  those  prin- 
ciples of  international  law  which  are  based  upon  the 
theory  that  every  nation  shall  have  its  rights  pro- 
tected and  its  just  claims  enforced. 

Assuming,  however,  that  the  attitude  of  Venezuela 
will  remain  unchanged,  the  dispute  has  reached  such 
a  stage  as  to  make  it  now  incumbent  upon  the  United 
States  to  take  measures  to  determine  with  sufficient 
certainty  for  Its  justification  what  is  the  true  divis- 
ional line  between  the  republic  of  Venezuela  and  Brit- 
ish Guiana. 

In  order  that  such  an  examination  might  be  prose- 
cuted in  a  thorough  and  satisfactory  manner,  I  suggest 
that  the  Congress  make  an  adequate  appropriation 
for  the  expenses  of  a  commission  to  be  appointed  by 
the  executive  who  shall  make  the  necessary  investi- 
gation. .  .  .  When  such  report  is  made  and  ac- 
cepted it  will,  in  my  opinion,  be  the  duty  of  the 
United  States  to  resist  by  every  means  in  its  power 
as  a  wilful  aggression  upon  its  rights  and  interests 
the  appropriation  by  Great  Britain  of  any  lands  or 
the  exercise  of  governmental  jurisdiction  over  any 
territory  which  after  investigation  we  have  deter- 
mined of  right  belongs  to  Venezuela. 

I   am,    nevertheless,    firm    in   my    conviction   that 


216  AMERICAN    HISTORY    STUDIES. 

while  it  is  a  grievous  thing  to  contemplate  the  two 
great  English-speaking  peoples  of  the  world  as  being 
otherwise  than  friendly  competitors  in  the  onward- 
march  of  civilization  and  strenuous  worthy  rivals  in  all 
the  arts  of  peace,  there  is  no  calamity  which  a  great 
nation  can  invite  which  equals  that  which  follows  a 
eupine  submission  to  wrong  and  injustice  and  the 
consequent  loss  of  national  self-respect  and  honor 
beneath  which  is  shielded  and  defended  a  people's 
safety  and  greatness. — Nebraska  State  Journal,  Decem- 
ber 18,  1895. 

QUESTIONS. 

1.  Who  acted  as  the  first  Secretaries  of  State  for  the 
United  States?  2.  How  were  they  chosen?  3.  What 
their  duties?  4.  How  were  treaties  to  be  prepared? 
5.  Who  were  the  first  foreign  ministers?  4.  Who  ap- 
pointed them?  7.  How  were  they  to  live?  8.  Why 
were  they  to  live  in  such  a  style?  9.  With  what  na- 
tion did  we  form  the  first  treaty?  10.  What  guaran- 
tees did  France  and  the  United  States  mutually  make? 
11.  What  was  the  leading  object  of  the  treaty? 

1.  What  peculiar  statements  do  you  find  in  the  treaty 
of  peace  of  1783?  2.  Who  were  acknowledged  inde- 
pendent? 3.  Find  out  why  the  navigation  of  the 
Mississippi  river  was  to  remain  forever  free  to  both 
nations.  4.  How  did  John  Adams  feel  in  regard  to 
the  fisheries.  5.  Summarize  his  arguments.  6.  Was 
he  ready  to  abandon  the  fisheries?  7.  Whom  did 
Adams  regard  as  the  ablest  of  the  commissioners? 
8.  What  title  had  the  French  given  him?  9.  Did  he 
believe  he  deserved  It? 

1.  Why  was  Mr.  Monroe  told  that  France  did  not  in- 
tend to  receive  at  present  another  minister  from  the 
United  States?  2.  Find  out  who  the  Directory  were. 
3.  Why  the  cry  "millions  for  defense,  not  a  cent  for 
tribute"?  4.  Why  the  name  X.  Y.  Z.  to  the  difficulty 
with  France,  1798-'99?  5.  How  did  "Hail  Columbia" 
come  to  be  written?  6.  What  do  you  think  of  the 
"poetry"  of  1798?  7.  What  did  the  Americans  evi- 
dently think  of  the  French  at  this  time?  8.  Name  the 
causes  of  the  war  of  1812.  9.  What  does  Clay  mean 
by  British  principle  of  impressment?  10.  Could  a  per- 
son be  a  citizen  of  two  states  at  once?  11.  If  so  which 
should  protect  him?  12.  How  did  Clay  feel  in  regard 
to  war?  '  13.  How  about  making  peace  in  1813? 

1.  What  had  Jackson  done  that  made  Clay  so  sar- 
castic in  his  speech  of  January  17,  1819?  2.  Did  Clay 
fear  Jackson?  3.  Where  did  he  get  his  model  for  his 
sentence  beginning  "Remember  that  Greece  had  her 
Alexander,"  etc.?  4.  Did  Clay  wish  to  purchase 
Florida  in  1820?  5.  Was  there  any  other  territor7 
he  preferred;  why? 


FOREIGN*    RELATIONS    AND    DIPLOMACY.       217 

1.  What  principles  did  the  Holy  Allies  hold?  2. 
Who  were  the  Holy  Allies?  3.  Why  had  they  formed 
the  holy  alliance?  4.  What  principles  of  government 
did  the  Holy  Allies  intend  to  destroy?  5.  How  did 
they  regard  the  liberty  of  the  press?  6.  Who  first  set 
forth  some  of  the  ideas  in  the  Monroe  Doctrine?  7. 
What  idea  does  Jefferson  add?  8.  What  did  Jefferson 
believe  were  the  differences  in  government  between 
Europe  and  America?  9.  What  doctrines  does  Mon- 
roe set  forth  in  his  message  of  December  2,  1823?  10. 
What  did  he  mean  by  their  "political  system"?  11. 
How  did  President  Cleveland  interpret  the  Monroe 
Doctrine?  12.  To  what  question  did  he  apply  it?  13. 
Is  is  a  part  of  international  law?  14.  Write  a  paper 
on  the  growth  of  the  Monroe  Doctrine.  15.  Is  it  appli- 
cable now  to  the  Cuban  issue? 


American  History  Studies 


No.  10 


JUNE,  1898. 


A  STUDY  IN  ECONOMIC  HISTORY. 


SELECTIONS  MADE  FROM  THE  SOURCES 


H.  W.  CALDWELL, 

UNIVERSITY  OF  NEBRASKA. 


J.  H.  MILLER,  Publisher, 
LINCOLN,  NEBRASKA. 


Yearly  Subscription,    u   cents.  Single  Copy,  5  centB. 


PUBLISHED  MONTHLY,  EXCEPT  JULY  AND  AUGUST. 

Entered  as  second-class  matter  at  the  Post  Office, '  jncoln,  Nebraska, 
U.  a  A. 


AMERICAN  HISTORY  STUDIES. 


A  STUDY  IN  ECONOMIC  HISTORY. 

!;BIS  last  number  of  our  studies  for  the 
year  will  aim  to  give  us  a  little  insight 
into  the  history  of  the  tariff,  and  the 
movement  for  internal  improvements.  It  has 
been  thought  better  to  confine  our  study  to 
these  two  topics,  so  that  the  treatment  might 
be  complete  enough  to  give  a  fair  idea  of  their 
development,  rather  than  to  try  to  cover  in  a 
less  thorough  manner  the  whole  field.  At  the 
best  the  matter  selected  can  only  be  held  to  be 
supplementary;  however  it  is  thought  that  few, 
if  any,  of  our  ordinary  school  histories  contain 
as  complete  a  treatment.  Besides  the  chief 
advantage  claimed  for  these  studies  is  not  so 
much  that  they  give  a  greater  amount  of  knowl- 
edge, but  that  they  afford  the  means  whereby 
the  student  may  be  enabled  to  work  out  his 
history  to  a  great  extent  for  himself.  The 
thought  must  be  present,  or  the  student  cannot 
do  anything.  He  cannot  be  a  mere  memory 
machine. 

These  studies  come  down  only  to  the  time  of 
the  civil  war.  By  leaving  out  the  more  recent 
years  it  has  been  hoped  that  prejudice  might 
play  a  less  important  part,  and  reason  and  calm 
judgment  a -greater  part.  The  tariff  has  been 
treated  in  the  main  from  the  standpoint  of  pro- 
tection versus  free  trade.  As  this  is  still  a  con- 
troverted question,  it  needs  to  be  handled  with 
care  in  order  that  the  student  may  look  at  the 
past  from  9,  fair  and  free  minded  standpoint. 
The  question  of  internal  improvements  has 
passed  so  far  into  limbo  that  there  seems  to  be 


A    STUDY    IN    ECONOMIC    HISTORY.  221 

no  danger  in  wrong  ideas  being  gained  by  car- 
rying present  prepossessions  into  a  study  of 
past  times. 

I  shall  not  outline  these  subjects  in  my  intro- 
ductory remarks,  for  I  believe  the  extracts  and 
the  questions  on  them  will  accomplish  the  end 
sought  in  the  general  summary;  and  thus  the 
results  will  be  more  completely  the  student's 
own  work.  There  is  always  present  a  tendency 
in  the  pupil  to  find  in  the  documents  what  the 
collator  has  found,  or  believes  he  has  found. 
In  this  number  there  will  be  no  suggestions. 
Each  teacher,  therefore,  may  work  with  his 
pupils  uninfluenced  by  any  suggestions  of  mine. 

I.  THE  TARIFF. 

The  following  extracts  from  the  laws  of  Eng- 
land will  help  us  to  understand  the  early  feel- 
ing of  the  statesmen  of  the  United  States  in 
regard  to  any  restrictions  on  the  right  to  manu- 
facture and  to  trade. 

[1699  it  was  declared  to  be]  unlawful  to  load  wool 
upon  any  horse,  cart,  or  other  carriage. 

[1750.]  WHEREAS,  The  importation  of  bar  iron  from 
His  Majesty's  colonies  in  America,  into  the  port  of  Lon- 
don, .  .  .  will  be  a  great  advantage,  not  only  to 
the  said  colonies,  but  also  to  this  kingdom,  by  furnish- 
ing the  manufacturers  of  iron  with  a  supply  of  that 
useful  and  necessary  commodity,  and  by  means  thereof 
large  sums  of  money,"  now  annually  paid  for  iron  to 
foreigners,  will  be  saved  to  this  Kingdom,  and  a  greater 
quantity  of  the  woolen,  and  other  manufactures  of 
Great  Britain,  will  be  exported  to  America,  in  exchange 
for  such  iron  so  imported:  .  .  .  Be  it  therefore  en- 
acted, etc. 

SEC.  IX.  And  that  pig  and  bar  iron  made  in  his 
Majesty's  colonies  in  America  may  be  further  manufac- 
tured in  this  Kingdom;  be  it  further  enacted  that 
...  no  mill  or  other  engine  for  slitting  or  rolling  of 
iron,  or  any  plateing  forge  to  work  with  a  tilt  hammer, 
or  any  furnace  for  making  steel,  shall  be  erected,  or 
after  such  erection,  continue  in  any  part  of  his  Majesty's 
colonies  in  America.  .  .  . 


222  AMERICAN    HISTORY    STUDIES. 

SEC.  X.  And  it  is  hereby  enacted  .  .  .  that  every 
such  mill,  engine,  forge,  or  furnace  so  erected  or  con- 
tinued contrary  to  the  directions  of  this  Act,  shall  be 
deemed  a  common  nuisance,  and  within  thirty  days 
must  be  abated. — Cited  in  Elliott's  Tariff  Controversy, 
p.  13. 

About  1760,  when  it  was  proposed  by  some  to 
restore  Canada  to  France,  Franklin  protests 
and  uses  the  following  argument  to  convince 
the  English  manufacturing  and  commercial  in- 
terests that  it  will  be  for  their  interests  to 
retain  Canada.  It  will  be  noticed  that  Frank 
lin  speaks  as  an  Englishman: 

A  people  spread  through  the  whole  tract  of  country 
on  this  side  of  the  Mississippi,  and  secured  by  Canada 
in  our  hands,  would  probably  for  some  centuries  find 
employment  in  agriculture,  and  thereby  free  us  at  home 
effectually  from  our  fears  of  American  manufactures. 
.  .  .  Manufactures  are  founded  in  poverty.  .  .  . 
But  no  man  who  can  have  a  piece  of  land  of  his  own 
sufficient  by  his  labor  to  subsist  his  family  in  plenty, 
is  poor  enough  to  be  a  manufacturer  and  work  for  a 
master.  Hence  while  there  is  land  enough  in  America 
for  our  own  people,  there  can  never  be  manufactures 
to  any  amount  or  value. — Franklin,  Works,  III,  p.  86. 

In  1776,  in  a  letter  to  Mr.  Hartley,  in  speak- 
ing of  the  terms  of  peace  between  England  and 
the  United  States,  Franklin  said: 

Restraint  on  the  freedom  of  commerce  and  inter- 
course between  us  can  afford  no  advantage  equivalent 
to  the  mischief  they  will  do  by  keeping  up  ill-humor 
and  promoting  a  total  alienation, — Works,  VIII,  p.  337. 

In  1787  he  wrote: 

We  shall,  as  you  suppose,  have  imposts  on  trade  and 
custom-houses,  not  because  other  nations  have  them, 
but  because  we  cannot  at  present  do  without  them. 
.  .  .  When  we  are  out  of  debt  we  may  leave  our 
trade  free,  for  our  ordinary  charges  of  government  will 
not  be  great.— Works,  IX,  p.  460. 

Jefferson  wrote  in  his  "Notes  on  Virginia,"  in 
1781,  as  follows: 


A    STUDY    IN    ECONOMIC    HISTORY.  223 

Those  who  labor  in  the  earth  are  the  chosen  people 
of  God,  if  ever  he  had  a  chosen  people.  .  .  .  While 
we  have  land  to  labor,  then,  let  us  never  wish  to  see 
our  citizens  occupied  at  bench  work,  or  twirling  a  dis- 
taff. Carpenters,  masons,  and  smiths,  are  wanting  in 
husbandry;  but  for  the  general  operations  of  manu- 
facture, let  our  workshops  remain  in  Europe. — Jefferson, 
Works,  Till,  p.  .',05. 

Seven  years  later  we  find  these  words: 
In  general,  it  is  impossible  that  manufactures  should 

succeed   in  America,   from   the   high   prices  of   labor. 

This  is  occasioned  by  the  great  demand  of  labor  for 

agriculture. — Ibid,  II,  p.  41~- 

John  Adams,  in  1780,  gives  us  this  picture  of 
his  expectations: 

America  is  the  country  of  raw  materials,  and  of  com- 
merce enough  to  carry  them  to  a  good  market;  but 
Europe  is  the  country  for  manufactures  and  commerce. 
Thus  Europe  and  America  will  be  blessings  to  each 
other,  if  some  malevolent  policy  does  not  frustrate  the 
purposes  of  nature. — J.  Adams'  Works,  VII,  p.  809. 

Let  the  following  quotation  answer  whether 
he  believed  this  "malevolent  policy"  had 
triumphed  or  not.  On  learning,  in  1783,  that 
the  English  had  forbidden  all  trade  with  the 
British  West  Indies  except  in  British  vessels, 
he  wrote: 

This  proclamation  is  issued  in  full  confidence  that 
the  United  States  have  no  confidence  in  one  another; 
that  they  cannot  agree  to  act  in  a  body  as  one  nation; 
that  they  cannot  agree  upon  any  navigation  act  which 
may  be  common  to  the  thirteen  States.  Our  proper 
remedy  would  be  to  confine  our  exports  to  American 
ships.— Ibid,  Till,  p.  97. 

July  19,  1785,  he  wrote: 

Whether  prohibitions  or  high  duties  will  be  most 
politic  is  a  great  question. — Ibid,  p.  282. 

August  10,  of  the  same  year,  he  wrote  to  Jay 
as  follows:  •* 

As  the  French  court  has  condescended  to  adopt  our 


224  AMERICAN    HISTORY    STUDIES. 

principle  in  theory,  I  am  very  much  afraid  WC  shall  be 
obliged  to  imitate  their  wisdom  in  practice  [and  import 
only  in  our  own  vessels]  ....  We  have  hitherto 
been  the  bubbles  of  our  own  philosophical  and  equita- 
ble liberality;  .  .  .  both  France  and  England  have 
shown  a  constant  disposition  to  take  a  selfish  and 
partial  advantage  of  us  because  of  them.  ...  I 
hope  we  shall  be  the  dupes  no  longer  than  we  must. 
I  would  venture  upon  monopolies  and  exclusions,  if 
they  were  found  to  be  the  only  arms  of  defence 
against  monopolies  and  exclusions,  without  fear  of 
offending  Dean  Tucker  or  the  ghost  of  Doctor  Ques- 
nay.— Ibid,  299. 

A  few  days  later  he  wrote  in  these  words: 

Patience  under  all  the  unequal  burdens  they  impose 
upon  our  commerce  will  do  us  no  good;  it  will  con- 
tribute in  no  degree  to  preserve  the  peace  of  this 
country.  On  the  contrary,  nothing  but  retaliation, 
reciprocal  prohibitions  and  imposts,  and  putting  our- 
selves in  a  posture  of  defence,  will  have'  any  effect. 
.  .  .  Confining  exports  to  our  own  ships,  and  laying 
on  heavy  duties  upon  all  foreign  luxuries,  and  en- 
couraging our  own  manufactures,  appear  to  me  to  be 
our  only  resource. — Ibid,  313,  cited  in  Elliott,  p.  52. 

From  the  debate  over  the  tariff  act  of  1789 
we  may  quote  some  remarks  which  will  still 
further  help  us  in  understanding  the  spirit  of 
the  time.  Madison  says: 

I  am  a  friend  of  free  commerce,  and  at  the  same 
time  a  friend  to  such  regulations  as  are  calculated  to 
promote  our  own  interest,  and  this  on  national  prin- 
ciples. ...  I  wish  we  were  under  less  necessity 
than  I  find  we  are,  to  shackle  our  commerce  with 
duties,  restrictions,  and  preferences;  but  there  are 
cases  in  which  it  is  impossible  to  avoid  following 
the  example  of  other  nations  in  the  great  diversity  of 
our  trade. — Annals  of  Congress,  I,  pp.  192,  193. 

During  the  course  of  the  same  debate  Ames, 
the  leading  Federalist  from  Massachusetts, 
wrote  these  words  to  a  friend : 

The  .Senate  has  begun  to  reduce  the  rate  of  duties. 


A    STUDY    IN    ECONOMIC    HISTORY.  225 

Rum  is  reduced  one-third.  .  .  .  Molasses  from  five 
to  four.  I  feel  as  Euceladus  would  if  Etna  was  re- 
moved. The  Senate,  God  bless  them,  as  if  designated 
by  Providence  to  keep  rash  and  frolicksome  brats  out 
of  the  fire,  have  demolished  the  absurd,  unpolitic, 
mad  discriminations  of  foreigners  in  alliance,  from 
other  foreigners. — Life  of  Fisher  Ames,  p.  45. 

Hamilton,  in  his  famous  Keport  on  Manufac- 
tures, 1792,  after  noting  the  arguments  for 
freedom  of  trade,  expresses. himself  as  follows: 

This  mode  of  reasoning  is  founded  upon  facts  and 
principles  which  have  certainly  respectable  pretensions. 
If  it  had  governed  the  conduct  of  nations  more  gen- 
erally than  it  has  done,  there  is  room  to  suppose  that 
it  might  have  carried  them  faster  to  prosperity  and 
greatness  than  they  have  attained  by  the  pursuit  of 
maxims  too  widely  opposite.  Most  general  theories, 
however,  admit  of  numerous  exceptions.  .  .  . — State 
Papers  and  Speeches  on  the  Tariff,  p.  3. 

[After  discussing  the  value  of  manufactures  he  says:] 
The  foregoing  considerations  seem  sufficient  to  estab- 
lish, as  general  propositions,  that  it  is  the  interest  of 
nations  to  diversify  the  industrial  pursuits  of  the  indi- 
viduals who  compose  them;  that  the  establishment  of 
manufactures  is  calculated  not  only  to  increase  the 
general  stock  of  useful  and  productive  labor,  but  ever 
to  improve  the  state  of  agriculture  in  particular.  .  . 
Ibid,  p.  25. 

[Again  he  says:]  If  the  system  of  perfect  liberty  to 
industry  and  commerce  were  the  prevailing  system  of 
nations,  the  arguments  which  dissuade  a  country  in. 
the  predicament  of  the  United  States  from  the  zealous 
pursuit  of  manufactures  would,  doubtless,  have  great 
force.  It  will  not  be  affirmed  that  they  might  not  be 
permitted,  with  few  exceptions,  to  serve  as  a  rule  of 
national  conduct.  In  such  a  state  of  things  each  coun- 
try would  have  the  full  benefit  of  its  peculiar  advan- 
tages to  compensate  for  its  deficiencies  or  disadvan- 
tages. .* .  . 

But  the  system  which  has  been  mentioned  is  far 
from  characterizing  the  general  policy  of  nations. 
.  .  .  The  consequence  of  it  is  that  the  United  States 
are,  to  a  certain  extent,  in  the  situation  of  a  country 


226  AMERICAN    HISTORY    STUDIES. 

precluded  from  foreign  commerce.  ...  In  such  a 
position  of  things  the  United  States  cannot  exchange 
with  Europe  on  equal  terms,  and  the  want  of  reci- 
procity would  render  them  the  victim  of  a  system 
which  should  induce  them  to  confine  their  views  to 
agriculture,  and  refrain  from  manufacture.— Ibid,  pp. 
26,  27. 

Hamilton  finally  sums  up  in  several  proposi- 
tions the  advantages  which  he  claims  will  be 
secured  to  the  country  should  it  encourage  the 
development  of  manufactures. 

There  seems  to  be  a  moral  certainty  that  the  trade 
of  a  country  which  is  both  manufacturing  and  agricult- 
ural will  be  more  lucrative  and  prosperous  than  that 
of  a  country  which  is  merely  agricultural.  .  .  . 

Another  circumstance  which  gives  a  superiority  of 
commercial  advantages  to  States  that  manufacture  as 
well  as  cultivate  consists  in  the  more  numerous  attrac- 
tions which  a  mere  diversified  market  offers.  .  .  . 
A  third  circumstance  .  .  .  has  relation  to  the  stag- 
nations of  demand  for  certain  commodities  which  at 
some  time  or  other  interfere  more  or  less  with  the  sale 
of  all.  .  .  . 

Not  only  the  wealth,  but  the  independence  and  se- 
curity of  a  country  appear  to  be  materially  connected 
with  the  prosperity  of  manufactures.  .  .  .  Our  dis- 
tance frqm  Europe,  the  great  fountain  of  manufactured 
supply,  subjects  us,  in  the  existing  state  of  things,  to 
inconvenience  and  loss  in  two  ways  [Bulkiness  of  com- 
modities and  consequent  cost  of  carriage].  .  .  . 

If,  then,  it  satisfactorily  appears  that  it  is  the  intent 
of  the  United  States  generally  to  encourage  manufac- 
tures, it  merits  particular  attention,  that  there  are 
circumstances  which  render  the  present  a  critical  mo- 
ment for  entering  with  zeal  upon  the  important  busi- 
ness. .  .  .—Ibid,  pp.  52,  53,  55,  56,  60. 

Finally  Hamilton  suggests  eleven  means  that 
maj*  be  used  to  encourage  the  development  of 
manufactures: 

(1.)  Protective  duties.    .    .    . 

(2.)  Prohibitions  of  rival  articles,  or  duties  equiva- 
lent to  prohibitions. 


A    STUDY    IN    ECONOMIC    HISTORY.  227 

(3.)  Prohibitions  of  the  exportation  of  the  materials 
of  manufactures. 

(4.)  Pecuniary  bounties  [He  especially  approves  of 
bounties]. 

(5.)  Premiums. 

(6.)  The  exemptions  of  the  materials  of  manufac- 
tures from  duty. 

(7.)  Drawbacks  on  the  duties  which  are  imposed  on 
the  materials  of  manufactures. 

(8.)  The  encouragement  of  new  inventions  and  dis- 
coveries. .  .  . 

(9.)  Judicious  regulations  for  the  inspection  of  manu- 
factured commodities. 

(10.)  The  facilitating  of  pecuniary  remittances  from 
place  to  place. 

(11.)  The  facilitating  of  the  transportation  of  com- 
modities.— Ibid,  pp.  62-75. 

February  12,  1816,  Mr.  A.  J.  Dallas,  secretary 
of  the  treasury,  in  obedience  to  a  resolution  of 
the  house  of  representatives,  made  a  report  on 
ua  general  tariff  of  duties  suitable  to  be  im- 
posed on  imported  goods."  ...  In  part  he 
said: 

There  are  few,  if  any,  governments  which  do  not 
regard  the  establishment  of  domestic  manufactures,  as 
a  chief  object  of  public  policy.  .  .  . 

The  American  manufactures  may  be  satisfactorily 
divided  into  three  principal  classes;  .  .  .  First 
class — Manufactures  which  are  firmly  and  permanently 
established,  and  which  wholly,  or  almost  wholly,  sup- 
ply the  demand  for  domestic  use  and  consumption. 
Second  class — Manufactures  which  ...  do  not  .  .  . 
but  which,  with  proper  cultivation,  are  capable  of 
being  matured  to  the  whole  extent  of  the  demand. 
Third  class — Manufactures  which  are  so  slightly  culti- 
vated, as  to  leave  the  demand  of  the  country  wholly, 
or  almost  wholly,  dependent  upon  foreign  sources  for 
a  supply.  ,  .  . 

[First  class] — Duties  might  be  freely  imposed  upon 
the  importation  of  similar  articles,  amounting  wholly, 
or  nearly,  to  a  prohibition,  without  endangering  a 
scarcity  in  the  supply,  or  [exorbitant  prices].  .  .  . 


228  AMERICAN    HISTORY    STUDIES. 

The  second  class  of  manufactures  presents  considera- 
tions of  the  most  interesting,  and  not  of  the  least  em- 
barrassing nature,  in  the  formation  of  a  tariff,  .  .  . 
for  it  is  respectfully  thought  to  be  in  the  power  of 
the  legislature,  by  a  well-timed  and  well-directed  pat- 
ronage, to  place  them,  within  a  very  limited  period, 
upon  the  footing  which  the  manufactures  of  the  first 
class  have  been  so  happily  placed,  .  .  .  and  it  will 
soon  be  understood  that  the  success  of  the  American 
manufacture  which  tends  to  diminish  the  profit  (often 
the  excessive  profit)  of  the  importer,  does  not  neces- 
sarily add  to  the  price  of  the  article  in  the  hands  of 
the  consumer. 

The  third  class  of  manufactures  does  not  require  fur- 
ther attention  .  .  .  than  to  adjust  the  rate  of  duty 
to  the  amount  of  revenue  which  it  is  necessary  to  draw 
from  them.  They  have  not  yet  been  the  objects  of 

American  capital,  industry,  etc ;  and  the 

present  policy  of  the  government  is  directed  to  pro- 
tect, and  not  to  create  manufactures. — Niles  Register, 
pp.  437-W. 

In  1824  perhaps  the  greatest  debate  of  early 
years  over  the  tariff  took  place  between  Clay  on 
the  one  side  and  Webster  on  the  other.  These 
speeches  ought  to  be  read  by  every  American 
who  wishes  to  be  well  informed  concerning  the 
history  of  his  country.  Clay  says,  in  part: 

Two  classes  of  politicians  divide  the  people  of  the 
United  States.  According  to  the  system  of  one,  the 
produce  of  foreign  industry  should  be  subjected  to  no 
other  import  than  such  as  may  be  necessary  to  provide 
a  public  revenue;  and  the  produce  of  American  in- 
dustry should  be  left  to  sustain  itself,  if  it  can,  with  no 
other  than  that  incidental  protection,  in  its  competi- 
tion, at  home  as  well  as  abroad,  with  rival  foreign 
articles. 

In  casting  our  eyes  around  us  the  most  prominent 
circumstance  which  fixes  our  attention  and  challenges 
,our  deepest  regret  is  the  general  distress  which  per- 
vades the  whole  country. 

What,  again  I  would  ask,  is  the  cause  of  the  unhappy 


A    STUDY    IX    ECONOMIC    HISTORY.  229 

condition  of  our  country  which  I  have  faintly  depicted? 
It  is  to  be  found  in  the  fact  that,  during  almost  the 
whole  existence  of  this  government,  we  have  shaped 
our  industry,  our  navigation,  and  our  commerce,  in 
reference  to  an  extraordinary  war  in  Europe,  and  to 
foreign  markets  which  no  longer  exist.  .  .  . 

Our  agricultural  is  our  greatest  interest.  It  ought 
ever  to  be  predominant.  .  .  .  Can  we  do  nothing  to 
invigorate  it;  .  .  .  ?  We  have  seen  the  causes. 
.  .  .  We  have  seen  that  an  exclusive  dependence 
upon  the  foreign  market  must  lead  to  still  severer 

distress We  must  speedily  adopt  a  genuine 

American  policy.  Still  cherishing  the  foreign  market, 
let  us  create  also  a  home  market.  .  .  . 

The  committee  will  observe,  from  the  table,  that  the 
measure  of  the  wealth  of  a  nation  is  indicated  by  the 
measure  of  its  protection  of  its  industry;  and  that  the 
measure  of  the  poverty  of  a  nation  is  marked  by  that 
of  the  degree  in  which  it  neglect's  and  abandons  the 
care  of  its  own  industry,  .  .  .  Great  Britain  pro- 
tects most  her  industry,  and  the  wealth  of  Great 
Britain  is  consequently  the  greatest. — State  Papers  and 
Speeches  on  the  Tariff,  pp.  253-275. 

April  1  and  2  Mr.  Webster  replied  to  this 
speech  of  Clay  in  perhaps  the  ablest  speech 
that  he  ever  made  on  the  tariff.  A  few  ex- 
tracts will  indicate  the  scope  of  the  argument: 

We  are  represented  as  on  the  very  verge  and  brink 
of  national  ruin.  So  far  from  acquiescing  in  these 
opinions,  I  believe  there  has  been  no  period  in  which 
the  general  prosperity  was  better  secured,  or  rested 
on  a  more  solid  foundation.  .  .  . 

We  have  heard  much  of  the  policy  of  England,  and 
her  example  has  been  repeatedly  urged  upon  us,  ... 
1  took  occasion  the  other  day  to  remark,  that  more 
liberal  notions  were  growing  prevalent  on  this  sub- 
ject; that  the  policy  of  restraints  and  prohibitions  was 
getting  out  of  repute,  as  the  true  nature  of  commerce 
became  better  understood;  .  .  . 


2  JO  AMERICAN    HISTORY    STUDIES. 

I  have  never  said,  indeed,  that  prohibitory  laws  did 
not  exist  in  England;  we  all  know  they  do;  but  the 
question  is,  does  she  own  her  prosperity  and  greatness 
to  these  laws?  I  venture  to  say  that  such  is  not  the 
opinion  of  the  public  men  now  in  England;  .  .  . 
[Lord  Lansdowne,  in  a  recent  speech  in  Parliament 
said]  "No  axiom  was  more  true  than  this:  that  it  was 
by  growing  what  the  territory  of  a  country  could 
grow  most  cheaply,  and  by  receiving  from  other  coun- 
tries what  it  could  not  produce  except  at  too  great  an 
expense,  that  the  greatest  degree  of  happiness  was  to 
be  communicated  to  the  greatest  extent  of  population." 
[Webster  quoted  this  with  approval,  as  he  did  another 
statement  that]  "Some  suppose  that  we  have  risen  in 
consequence  of  that  system  [the  restrictive];  others, 
of  whom  I  am  one,  believe  that  we  have  risen  in  spite 
of  that  system."  .  .  . 

In  fine,  sir,  I  think  it  is  clear  that  if  we  now  em- 
brace the  system  of  prohibitions  and  restrictions  we 
shall  show  an  affection  for  what  others  have  discarded, 
and  be  attempting  to  ornament  ourselves  with  cast-off 
apparel. 

We  are  urged  to  adopt  the  system  [protective]  upon 
general  principles;  and  what  would  be  the  consequence 
of  the  universal  application  of  such  a  principle,  but 
that  nations  would  abstain  entirely  from  all  inter- 
course with  one  another?  I  do  not  admit  the  general 
principle;  on  the  contrary,  I  think  freedom  of  trade 
to  be  the  general  principle,  and  restriction  the  excep- 
tion. .  .  . 

We  are  asked  what  nations  ever  attained  eminent 
prosperity  without  encouraging  manufactures?  I  may 
ask,  what  nation  ever  reached  the  like  prosperity  with- 
out promoting  foreign  trade? 

On  the  general  question,  sir,  allow  me  to  ask  if  the 
doctrine  «f  prohibition,  as  a  general  doctrine,  be  not 
preposterous?  Suppose  all  nations  to  act  upon  it;  they 
would  be  prosperous,  then,  according  to  the  argument, 
precisely  in  the  proportion  in  which  they  abolished 
trade  with  one  another.  The  less  of  mutual  commerce 
the  better,  upon  this  hypothesis.  .  .  . 


A    STUDY    IN    ECONOMIC    HISTORY.  231 

The  poverty  and  unhappiness  of  Spain  have  been 
attributed  to  the  want  of  protection  to  her  own  in- 
dustry. If  by  this  it  is  meant  that  the  poverty  of 
Spain  is  owing  to  bad  government  and  bad  laws,  the 
remark  is,  in  a  great  measure,  just.  But  these  very 
laws  are  bad  because  they  are  restrictive,  partial,  and 
prohibitory.  If  prohibition  were  protection,  Spain 
would  seem  to  have  had  enough  of  it.  .  .  — State 
Papers  and  Speeches  on  the  Tariff,  pp.  320-36Jt. 

"The  Free  Trade  Memorial,"  prepared  by  Al- 
bert Gallatin  in  1831,  is  one  of  the  most  famous 
of  American  state  papers  on  that  side  of  the 
question.  It  is  difficult  to  find  any  quotable 
passages  in  this  paper  which  will  show  ade- 
quately the  line  of  argument  followed.  In  one 
place  he  says: 

We  may,  also,  before  we  dismiss  this  branch  of  the 
subject,  and  in  order  to  rebut  those  general  assertions 
of  the  ruin  that  attends  all  nations  which  rely,  in  any 
considerable  degree,  on  foreign  trade  for  a  market, 
appeal  to  that  which  we  know  best,  which  we  have 
seen  and  enjoyed — to  the  experience  of  North  America. 
Assisted  only  by  the  ordinary  mechanical  arts,  and 
with  hardly  any  manufacturing  establishments, 
America,  during  two  centuries,  relied  almost  exclu- 
sively on  the  cultivation  of  her  soil,  and  on  the  ex- 
portation of  her  products  to  foreign  ports;  and  her 
progress  during  that  period,  in  population,  wealth,  and 
in  all  the  arts  of  civilization  .  .  .  stands  unparal- 
leled in  the  annals  of  mankind.  A  change  of  circum- 
stances may  induce  a  partial  and  gradual  alteration 
in  the  pursuits  of  her  citizens,  and  we  may  rest  as- 
sured that,  if  not  diverted  by  legislative  interference, 
they  will,  as  heretofore,  embrace  those  best  adapted  to 
their  situation. — State  Papers  and  Speeches  on  the  Tariff, 
p.  156. 

The  only  effect  that  can  possibly  be  ascribed  to  a 
protecting  duty  is  that  of  encouraging  the  establish- 
ment of  manufactures  which  would  otherwise  not 
have  existed,  or  ot  inducing  a  greater  number  of  per- 
sons to  embark  in  those  already  existing.  The  pro- 
priety of  the  duty  depends  altogether  on  the  proba- 


232  AMERICAN    HISTORY    STUDIES. 

bility  of  speedy  success,  that  is  to  say,  of  the 
manufacture  being  so  far  adapted  to  the  circumstances 
of  the  country  that,  after  having  been  assisted  by  the 
duty  in  surmounting  the  first  difficulties  to  every  new 
undertaking,  it  will  be  able  to  sustain  itself,  and  with- 
out such  assistance  to  compete  with  the  foreign  article. 
It  has  been  clearly  shown  that  the  manufacture  is 
otherwise  a  losing  concern,  productive  of  national  loss. 
—Ibid,  pp.  161,  162. 

In  1845  Kobert  J.  Walker,  secretary  of  the 
treasury,  in  his  report  to  congress,  urged  that 
the  tariff  be  reduced  to  a  revenue  basis.  The 
following  extracts  indicate  the  nature  of  his 
report : 

In  suggesting  improvements  in  the  revenue  laws,  the 
following  principles  have  been  adopted:  — 

1st.  That  no  more  money  should  be  collected  than  is 
necessary  for  the  wants  of  the  government,  economic- 
ally administered. 

2d.  That  no  duty  be  imposed  on  any  article  above  the 
lowest  rate  which  will  yield  the  largest  amount,  of 
revenue. 

4th.  That  the  maximum  revenue  duty  should  be  im- 
posed on  luxuries. 

5th.  That  all  minimums,  and  all  specific  duties, 
should  be  abolished,  and  ad  valorem  duties  substituted 
in  their  place  .... 

6th.  That  the  duty  should  be  so  imposed  as  to  ope- 
rate as  equally  as  possible  throughout  the  Union,  dis- 
criminating neither  for  nor  against  any  class  or  sec- 
tion. 

A  protective  tariff  is  a  question  regarding  the  en- 
hancement of  the  profits  of  capital.  That  is  the  ob- 
ject, and  not  to  augment  the  wages  of  labor,  which 
would  reduce  those  profits. 

The  present  tariff  is  unjust  and  unequal.  .  .  . 
It  discriminates  in  favor  of  manufactures  and  against 
agriculture,  by  imposing  many  higher  duties  upon  the 
manufactured  fabric  than  upon  the  agricultural  pro- 
duct out  of  which  it  is  made.  It  discriminates  in 


A    STUDY    IN    ECONOMIC    HISTORY.    *        233 

favor  of  the  manufacturer  and  against  the  mechanic, 
.  .  .  [also]  against  the  merchant,  .  .  .  and 
against  the  ship-builder  and  navigating  interest,  .  .  . 
etc.  It  discriminates  in  favor  of  the  rich  and  against 
the  poor.  .  .  . 

Legislation  for  classes  is  against  the  doctrine  of 
equal  rights,  repugnant  to  the  spirit  of  our  free  insti- 
tutions. .  .  . 

No  prejudice  is  felt  by  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury 
against  manufacturers.  His  opposition  is  to  the  pro- 
tective system,  and  not  to  classes  or  individuals.  .  .  . 
Whilst  a  due  regard. to  the  just  and  equal  rights  of  all 
classes  forbids  a  discrimination  in  favor  of  the  manu- 
factures by  duties  above  the  lowest  revenue  limits, 
no  disposition  is  felt  to  discriminate  against  them. 
.  .  . — State  Papers  and  Speeches  on  the  Tariff,  pp. 
219-232. 

II.  INTERNAL  IMPROVEMENTS. 

As  early  as  1774,  at  least,  Washington  saw 
the  great  importance  of  uniting  the  waters  of 
the  Ohio  and  Potomac,  regarding  it  as  "a  great 
and  truly  wise  policy."  (Works,  IX,  31.)  His 
tour  to  the  western  country  in  1784  confirmed 
him  in  the  idea.  He  wrote,  October  10,  1784: 

The  shortest,  easiest,  and  least  expensive  communi- 
cation with  the  invaluable  and  extensive  country  back 
of  us  is  by  one  or  both  of  the  rivers  of  this  State 
[Virginia]  which  have  their  sources  in  the  Appalachian 
mountains.  ...  I  need  not  remark  to  you,  sir, 
that  the  flanks  and  rear  of  the  United  States  are  pos- 
sessed by  other  powers,  and  formidable  ones,  too;  nor 
how  necessary  it  is  to  apply  the  cement  of  interest  to 
bind  all  parts  of  the  Union  together  by  indissoluble 
bonds,  especially  that  part  of  it  which  lies  immediately 
west  of  us,  with  the  Middle  States.  .  .  .  The  West- 
ern States*  (I  speak  now  from  my  own  observation) 
stand  as  it  were  upon  a  pivot.  The  touch  of  a  feather 
would  turn  them  any  way.  They  have  looked  down 
the  Mississippi  until  the  Spaniards,  very  impolitically 
I  think  for  themselves,  threw  difficulties  in  their  way, 


234  •     AMERICAN    HISTORY    STUDIES. 

and  they  looked  that  way  for  no  other  reason  than  be- 
cause they  could  glide  gently  down  the  stream  and 
because  they  have  no  other  means  of  coming  to  us 
but  by  long  land  transportations  and  unimproved  roads. 
.  .  .  But  smooth  the  road  and  make  easy  the  way 
for  them,  and  then  see  what  an  influx  of  articles  will 
be  poured  upon  us;  how  amazingly  our  exports  will  be 
increased  by  them,  and  how  amply  we  shall  be  com- 
pensated.— Works  (Sparks)  IX,  59-63. 

He  urges  in  various  letters  the  political  and 
commercial  possibilities  with  which  such  con- 
nections are  pregnant,  and  that  they  are  neces- 
sary to  save  the  West. 

Jefferson  wrote  to  a  citizen  of  Kentucky,  May 
26,  1788: 

I  wish  to  see  that  country  in  the  hands  of  people 
well  disposed,  who  know  the  value  of  the  connection 
between  that  and  the  maratime  states  and  who  wish  to 
cultivate  it.  I  consider  their  happiness  as  bound  up 
together  and  that  every  measure  should  be  taken  which 
may  draw  the  bands  of  union  tighter. — Jefferson's 
Works,  V  (Ford). 

And  to  Washington  he  wrote,  May  10,  1789: 

I  consider  the  union  of  [the  Potomac  and  Ohio  riv- 
ers] the  strongest  link  of  connection  between  the 
eastern  and  western  sides  of  our  confederacy. — Ibid,  V, 
pp.  93-94. 

To  Madison  he  wrote,  March  6,  1796: 

Have  you  considered  all  the  consequences  of  your 
proposition  [in  Congress  for  building  a  road  from 
Maine  to  Georgia]  respecting  port  roads?  I  view  it  as 
a  source  of  boundless  patronage  by  the  executive,  job- 
bing to  members  of  Congress  and  their  friends,  and  a 
bottomless  abyss  of  public  money.  You  will  begin  by 
only  appropriating  the  surplus  of  the  post  office  reve- 
nues; but  the  other  revenues  will  soon  be  called  to 
their  aid,  and  it  will  be  a  scene  of  eternal  scramble 
among  the  members  who  can  get  most  money  wasted 
in  their  state,  and  they  will  always  get  most  who  are 
meanest.— Ibid,  VII,  pp.  63-64. 


A    STUDY    IN    ECONOMIC    HISTORY.  235 

Jefferson  wrote  to  Baron  Humboldt: 
In  our  America  we  are  turning  to  public  improve- 
ments. Schools,  roads,  and  canals  are  everywhere 
either  in  operation  or  contemplation.  The  most  gi- 
gantic undertaking  is  that  of  New  York  for  [the  Erie 
Canal].  .  .  .  Internal  navigation  by  steamboats  is 
rapidly  spreading.  .  .  .  We  consider  the  employ- 
ment of  the  contributions  which  our  citizens  can 
spare,  after  feeding,  and  clothing,  and  lodging  them- 
selves comfortably,  as  more  useful,  more  moral,  and 
even  more  splendid  than  that  preferred  by  Europe  of 
destroying  human  life,  labor,  and  happiness. —  Works 
(185 7,  Ed.),  VII,  p.  75. 

To  Gallatin  he  wrote,  June  16,  1817,  regard- 
ing Madison's  recent  veto.  He  thinks  the  veto 
fortunate: 

Every  state  will  certainly  concede  the  power  and  this 
will  be  a  national  confirmation  of  the  ground  of  ap- 
peal to  them  and  will  settle  forever  the  meaning  of  this 
phrase  [the  "general  welfare"  clause  of  article  I,  sec- 
tion 8]  which,  by  a  mere  grammatical  quibble,  has 
countenanced  the  General  Government  in  a  claim  of 
universal  power.  ...  It  is  fortunate  for  another 
reason,  as  the  States,  in  conceding  the  power,  will 
modify  it  either  by  requiring  the  federal  ratio  of  ex- 
pense in  each  state,  or  otherwise,  so  as  to  secure  us 
against  its  partial  exercise. — Ibid,  VII,  p.  79. 

To  James  Madison,  December  24,  1825,  he 
said: 

I  have  for  some  time  considered  the  question  of  in- 
ternal improvement  as  desperate.  The  torrent  of  gen- 
eral opinion  sets  so  strongly  in  favor  of  it  as  to  be 
irresistible.  And  I  suppose  that  even  the  opposition 
in  Congress  will  hereafter  be  feeble  and  formal.  .  .  . 
I  learn  from  Richmond  that  those  who  think  with  us 
there  are  in  a  state  of  perfect  dismay,  not  knowing 
what  to  do  or  what  to  propose. — Ibid,  VII,  p.  422. 

Hamilton,  in  1792,  shows  how  he  feels  on  the 
question  in  the  following  words: 

The  symptoms  of  attention  to  the  improvement  of 
inland  navigation  which  have  lately  appeared  in  some 
quarters  must  fill  with  pleasure  every  heart  warmed 


236  AMERICAN    HISTORY    STUDIES. 

with  a  true  zeal  for  the  prosperity  of  the  country. 
These  examples  it  is  to  be  hoped  will  stimulate  the 
exertions  of  the  Government  and  citizens  of  every 
state.  There  can  certainly  be  no  object  more  worthy 
of  the  care  of  the  local  administration;  and  it  were  to 
be  wished  that  there  was  no  doubt  of  the  power  of  the 
National  Government  to  lend  its  direct  aid  on  a  com- 
prehensive plan.  This  is  one  of  those  improvements 
which  could  be  prosecuted  with  more  efficacy  by  the 
whole  than  by  any  part  or  parts  of  the  Union.  There 
are  cases  in  which  the  general  interest  will  be  in  dan- 
ger to  be  sacrificed  to  the  collision  of  some  supposed 
local  interests.  Jealousies  in  matters  of  this  kind  are 
as  apt  to  exist  as  they  are  apt  to  be  erroneous. — Hamil- 
ton's Report  on  Manufactures,  Works  (1851  Ed.},  Ill,  pp. 
255-57. 

He  held  to  the  same  views  in  1801,  as  may  be 
seen  from  this  extract: 

The  improvement  of  the  communications  between  the 
different  parts  of  the  country  is  an  object  well  worthy 
of  the  national  purse  and  one  which  would  abundantly 
repay  to  labor  the  portion  of  its  earnings  which  may 
have  been  borrowed  for  that  purpose.  To  provide 
roads  and  bridges  is  within  the  direct  purview  of  the 
Constitution.  In  many  parts  of  the  country,  especially 
in  the  Western  Territory,  a  matter  in  which  the  At- 
lantic States  are  equally  interested,  aqueducts  and  ca- 
nals would  also  be  fit  subjects  of  pecuniary  aid  from 
the  Government. — Hamilton's  Works,  VII,  pp.  155-56. 

The  improvement  of  the  roads  would  be  a  measure 
universally  popular.  None  can  be  more  so.  For  this 
purpose  a  regular  plan  should  be  adopted  co-exten- 
sive with  the  Union,  to  be  successively  executed,  and 
a  fund  should  be  appropriated  sufficient  for  the  basis 
of  a  loan  of  a  million  of  dollars.  The  revenue  of 
the  post  office  naturally  offers  itself.  The  future  reve- 
nue from  tolls  would  more  than  reimburse  the  ex- 
pense, and  public  utility  would  be  promoted  in  every 
direction.  .  .  .  An  article  ought  to  be  proposed  to 
be  added  to  the  Constitution  for  empowering  Congress 
to  open  canals  in  all  cases  in  which  it  may  be  nec- 
essary to  conduct  them  through  the  territory  of  two 
or  more  States  or  through  the  territory  of  a  State 


A    STUDY    IN    ECONOMIC    HISTORY.  237 

9 

and  that  of  the  United  States  The  power  is  very  de- 
^sirable  for  the  purpose  of  improving  the  prodigious 
facilities  for  inland  navigation  with  which  nature  has 
favored  this  country.  It  will  also  assist  commerce  and 
agriculture  b'y  rendering  the  transportation  of  com- 
modities more  cheap  and  expeditious.  It  will  tend  to 
secure  the  connection,  by  facilitating  the  communica- 
tion between  distant  portions  of  the  Union,  and  it  will 
be  a  useful  source  of  influence  to  the  government. — 
Hamilton's  Works,  VI,  pp.  385-87. 

A  committee  in  the  House  of  Representatives 
reported,  March  5,  1806,  upon  the  Chesapeake 
and  Delaware  canal,  that  they  "cannot  hesitate 
a  moment  in  deciding  on  the  importance  and 
extensive  utility"  of  the  canal. 

They  consider  the  project  as  an  opening  wedge  for 
an  extensive  inland  navigation  which  would  at  all 
times  be  of  an  immense  advantage  to  the  commercial 
as  well  as  the  agricultural  and  manufacturing  parts 
of  the  community.  But  in  the  event  of  a  war  its 
advantages  would  be  incalculable.  .  .  .  Did  the 
finances  of  the  country  admit  of  it  the  committee 
would  feel  a  perfect  freedom  in  recommending  .  .  . 
the  propriety  of  ...  such  aid.  .  .  . — American 
State  Papers,  I,  Miscellaneous,  p.  //52. 

[The  senate  committee  reported  similarly  the  same 
year  that]  it  is  among  the  first  duties  of  a  Govern- 
ment to  promote  public  improvements  of  a  general 
nature. — Ibid,  p.  4$4- 

In  Gallatin's  famous  report  on  roads  and 
canals,  made  in  1807,  we  find  the  most  complete 
discussion  of  the  subject  made  in  the  early 
years  of  our  history.  In  part  he  says: 

The  general  utility  of  artificial  roads  and  canals  is 
at  this  time  so  universally  admitted  as  hardly  to  re- 
quire any  additional  proofs.  It  is  sufficiently  evident 
that  whenever  the  annual  expense  of  transportation 
on  a  certain  route,  in  its  natural  state,  exceeds  the 
interest  on  the  capital  employed  in  improving  the  com- 
munication, and  the  annual  expense  of  transportation 
(exclusively  of  the  tolls)  by  the  improved  route,  the 
difference  is  an  annual  additional  income  to  the  na- 


238  AMERICAN    HISTORY    STUDIES. 

tion.  .  .  .  Some  works  already  executed  are  un- 
profitable; many  more  remain  unattempted,  because 
their  ultimate  productiveness  depends  on  other  im- 
provements too  extensive  or  too  distant  to  be  em- 
braced by  the  same  individuals.  The  General  Gov- 
ernment can  alone  remove  these  obstacles.  With 
resources  amply  sufficient  for  the  completion  of  every 
practicable  improvement  it  will  always  supply  the 
capital  wanted  for  any  work  which  it  may  undertake 
as  fast  as  the  work  itself  can  progress;  avoiding 
thereby  the  ruinous  loss  of  interest  on  a  dormant 
capital,  and  reducing  the  real  expense  to  its  lowest 
rate.  .  .  .  The  inconveniences,  complaints,  and 
perhaps  dangers,  which  may  result  from  a  vast  extent 
of  territory,  can  no  otherwise  be  radically  removed 
or  prevented  than  by  opening  speedy  and  easy  com- 
munications through  all  its  parts.  Good  roads  and 
canals  will  shorten  distances,  facilitate  commercial  and 
personal  intercourse,  and  unite  by  a  still  more  in- 
timate community  of  interests  the  most  remote  quarters 
of  the  United  States,  No  other  single  operation  within 
the  power  of  Government  can  more  effectually  tend  to 
strengthen  and  perpetuate  that  Union  which  secures 
external  independence,  domestic  peace,  and  internal 
liberty.  .  .  .  [The  improvements  he  therefore  sug- 
gests as]  most  important  to  facilitate  the  communica- 
tion between  the  great  geographical  divisions  of  the 
United  States  [are:  I,  from  north  to  south  parallel 
to  the  seacoast,  canals  costing  $3,000,000,  turnpikes 
costing  $4,800,000;  II,  from  east  to  west  forming  com- 
munications across  the  mountains  between  the  At- 
lantic and  western  rivers,  improvement  in  Atlantic 
rivers  costing  $1,500,000,  turnpikes  and  road  improve- 
ments costing  $3,000,000,  canals  costing  $300,000;  III, 
improvements  forming  inland  navigations  between  the 
Atlantic  seacoast  and  the  St.  Lawrence  and  Great 
Lakes,  $4,000,000.  This  total  of  $16,600,000  is  also  in- 
creased by  $3,400,000  for  local  improvements — a  grand 
total  of  $20,000,000,  which  it  is  proposed  to  accomplish 
in  ten  yearly  payments  of  $2,000,000  each.  The  public 
lands  may  be  sold  for  the  purpose  and  the  improve- 
ments, will,  in  turn,  benefit  the  purchasers.] 

It  is  evident  that  the  United  States  cannot,  under 
the  Constitution,  open  any  road  or  canal,  without  the 


A    STUDY    IN    ECONOMIC    HISTORY.  239 

consent  of  the  State  through  which  such  road  or  canal 
must  pass.  In  order  therefore  to  remove  every  im- 
pediment to  a  national  plan  of  internal  improvement, 
an  amendment  to  the  Constitution  was  suggested  by 
the  Executive  when  the  subject  was  recommended  to 
the  consideration  of  Congress  [by  President  Jefferson 
in  Message  11].  Until  this  be  obtained,  the  assent  of 
the  States  being  necessary  for  each  improvement,  the 
modifications  under  which  that  assent  may  be  given, 
will  necessarily  control  the  manner  of  applying  the 
money.  .  .  .  The  United  States  may  with  the  a:sant 
of  the  States  undertake  some  of  the  works  at  their 
sole  expense  or  they  may  subscribe  a  certain  number 
of  shares  of  the  stock  of  companies  incorporated  for 
the  purpose.  Loans  might  also,  in  some  instances, 
be  made  to  such  companies.  The  first  mode  would 
perhaps,  by  effectually  controlling  local  interests,  give 
the  most  proper  general  direction  to  the  work.  Its 
details  would  probably  be  executed  on  a  more  eco- 
nomical plan  by  private  companies. — American  State 
Papers,  I,  Miscellaneous,  pp.  72.'f-25,  740-Jfl. 

BENTON  (Mo.),  May  1,  1828,  says: 
He  was  in  favor  of  the  federal  power  to  make 
roads  and  canals  of  national  importance.  ...  He 
was  in  favor  of  the  construction  of  such  roads  and 
canals  by  the  Federal  Government  provided  the  States 
through  which  they  would  pass  consented  to  it  .  .  .; 
not  .  .  .  that  the  consent  of  a  State  could  confer 
a  power  upon  Congress  not  derived  from  the  Consti- 
tution; but  it  was  decent  and  becoming  to  consult  the 
wishes  of  the  State  in  all  such  cases  because  its  assent 
would  do  away  with  all  that  class  of  objections  to  the 
exercise  of  the  power  which  were  founded  upon  a  real 
or  supposed  violation  of  State  sovereignty  and  a  real 
or  supposed  violation  of  State  territory. — Register  De- 
bates, IV,  p.  718. 

CALHOUN-(S.  C.)  speaks  as  follows  in  1817: 
[In  times  of  peace  and  plenty]  to  what  can  we  di- 
rect our  resources  and  attention  more  important  than 
internal  improvements'  What  can  add  more  to  the 
wealth,  the  strength,  and  the  political  prosperity  of 
our  country?  ...  It  tends  to  diffuse  universal  op- 


240  AMERICAN    HISTORY    STUDIES. 

ulence.  .  .  .  When  we  come  to  consider  how  inti- 
mately the  strength  and  political  prosperity  of  the 
Republic  are  connected  with  this  subject  we  find  th*. 
most  urgent  reasons  why  we  should  apply  our  re- 
sources to  them.  .  .  .  Unless  the  means  of  com- 
mercial intercourse  are  rendered  much  more  perfect 
than  they  now  are  we  shall  never  be  able  in  war  to 
raise  the  necessary  supplies  .  .  .  and  the  means 
by  which  that  [remedy]  is  to  be  effected  are  roads, 
canals,  and  the  coasting  trade.  .  .  .  But  on  this 
subject  of  national  power  what  can  be  more  important 
than  a  perfect  unity  in  every  part,  in  feelings  and 
sentiments?  And  what  can  tend  more  powerfully  to 
produce  it  than  overcoming  the  effects  of  distance? 
.  .  .  We  are  great,  and  rapidly — he  was  about  to 
say  fearfully — growing.  This,  said  he,  is  our  pride 
and  danger — our  weakness  and  our  strength.  .  .  . 
Let  us  then  .  .  .  bind  the  Republic  together  with 
a  perfect  system  of  roads  and  canals.  Let  us  conquer 
space. — Annals  of  Congress,  XXX,  pp.  851-856. 

At  about  the  same  time,  February  8,  1817,  the 
House  used  this  language: 

Upon  mature  consideration  the  facility  of  commer- 
cial and  personal  intercourse  throughout  the  whole 
extent  of  the  United  States  and  its  Territories  is 
viewed  by  the  committee,  as  it  appears  to  have  been 
viewed  by  former  committees  of  both  branches  of  the 
National  Legislature,  and  by  every  Executive  of  the 
Government  since  its  formation,  as  an  essential  in- 
gredient in  the  general  economy  of  the  nation  as  well 
in  relation  to  the  pursuits  of  peace  as  to  those  of  war 
and  also  to  the  perpetuation  and  integrity  of  the  Re- 
publican Union. — American  State  Papers,  II,  Miscella- 
neous, p.  }$0. 

Madison  vetoes  a  bill  passed  by  Congress  ill 
1817  to  appropriate  money  for  internal  improve- 
ments, and  justifies  his  veto,  in  part,  in  these 
words: 

The  legislative  powers  vested  in  Congress  are  speci- 
fied and  enumerated  in  the  eighth  section  of  the  first 
article  of  the  Constitution  and  it  does  not  appear 
that  power  proposed  by  the  bill  ["An  act  to  set  apart 


A    STUDY    IN    ECONOMIC    HISTORY.  241 

and  pledge  certain  funds  for  internal  improvements"] 
is  among  the  enumerated  powers  or  that  it  falls  by 
any  just  interpretation  within  the  power  to  make  laws 
necessary  and  proper  for  carrying  into  execution  those 
or  other  powers  held  by  the  Constitution  in  the  Gov- 
ernment of  the  United  States.  ...  If  a  general 
power  to  construct  roads  and  canals  and  to  improve 
the  navigation  of  water  courses,  with  the  train  of 
powers  incident  thereto,  be  not  possessed  by  Congress, 
the  assent  of  the  States  .  .  .  cannot  confer  the 
power.  [But  while  vetoing  the  bill  he  "cherishes  the 
hope"  that  its  beneficial  objects  may  be  attained  by 
an  amendment  to  the  Constitution.] — Messages  and 
Papers  of  the  Presidents,  I,  pp.  584-585. 

Monroe,  in  his  "Views,"  May  4,  1822,  sum- 
marized the  arguments  that  have  been  ad- 
vanced in  favor  of  the  constitutional  power  of 
Congress  to  act.  He  says: 

The  advocates  of  the  power  derive  it  from  the  fol- 
lowing sources:  First,  the  right  to  establish  post- 
offices  and  post-roads;  second,  to  declare  war;  third, 
to  regulate  commerce  among  the  several  States;  fourth, 
from  the  power  to  pay  the  debts  and  provide  for  the 
common  defence  and  general  welfare  of  the  United 
States;  fifth,  from  the  power  to  make  all  laws  neces- 
sary and  proper  for  carrying  into  execution  all  the 
powers  vested  by  the  Constitution  in  the  Government 
of  the  United  States  or  in  any  department  or  officer 
thereof;  sixth  and  lastly,  from  the  power  to  dispose  of 
and  make  all  needful  rules  and  regulations  respecting 
the  territory  and  other  property  of  the  United  States. 
[He  denies  all  successively,  his  position  as  to  each 
may  be  summarized  as  follows: 

[No.  1.  merely  gives  to  Congress  power  to  fix  the  sites 
of  post-offices  and  the  routes  on  which  the  mail  may 
be  carried. 

No.  2,  if  allowed,  would  cover  the  entire  country 
with  roads  which  might  be  useful  in  time  of  war  but 
most  of  which  cannot  possibly  ever  be  connected  with 
war  transportation.  A.nd  the  influences  from  clause 
17  of  the  Constitution  and  general  reasoning  are  all 
against  it. 


242  AMERICAN   HISTORY    STUDIES. 

No.  3.  Such  commercial  powers  were  transferred  to 
the  United  States  whose  exercise  by  the  States  had 
proved  mischievous  and  irritating;  internal  improve- 
ments had  nothing  to  do  with  these,  but  only  the  levy- 
ing of  duties  and  imposts. 

No.  4  merely  gives  to  Congress  authority  to  appro- 
priate the  public  moneys  laid  and  collected  by  taxes, 
duties,  imposts,  and  excises.  It  is  the  only  clause 
in  the  Constitution  directly  giving  the  right  of  appro- 
priation; it  is  evidently  not  given  in  class  1  as  a  dis- 
tinct grant;  if  it  were,  then  its  vast  extent  swallows 
up  all  the  rest  of  the  Constitution  and  makes  it  use- 
less. But  this  power  of  appropriation  is  not  llm'ted 
to  expenditures  under  the  other  specific  grants  of  the 
eighth  section  strictly  constructed,  but  is  broad,  gen- 
eral, discretionary,  yet  always  limited  like  the  Gov- 
ernment of  the  Union  to  "great  national  purposes." 
For  internal  improvements  money  might  be  appro- 
priated, but  this  of  itself  can  do  nothing  toward  secur- 
ing the  land,  jurisdiction,  building  and  protecting  the 
works. 

No.  5  is  of  no  value  unless  the  power  is  primarily 
granted  by  one  of  the  other  powers. 

No.  6  is  shown  by  an  historical  argument  to  have 
nothing  to  do  with  the  question.] — Richardson's  Mes- 
sages and  Papers  of  the  Presidents,  II,  pp.  156-175. 

TRIMBLE  (Ky.),  January  21,  1825,  says: 
Public  opinion  ^as  embodying  itself  in  favor  of 
roads  and  canals,  and  during  the  last  year  had  made 
so  many  demonstrations  in  favor  of  internal  improve- 
ments that  Congress  might  consider  itself  called  upon 
by  the  nation  to  begin  the  work  in  good  earnest. — 
Register  of  Debates,  I,  p.  819. 

BUCHANAN  (Pa.),  1826,  uses  this  language: 
If  there  be  any  principle  of  constitutional  law 
which,  at  this  day,  should  be  considered  as  settled,  it 
is  that  Congress  has  the  power  to  aid  internal  im- 
provement by  subscribing  for  stock  in  companies  in- 
corporated by  the  States. — Register  of  Delates,  II,  p. 
1G15. 

CLAY  (Ky.),  in  1825, 
considered  the  question  as  to  the   existence  and   the 


A   STUDY    IN    ECONOMIC   HISTORY.  243 

exercise  of  a  power  in  the  General  Government  to 
carry  into  effect  a  system  of  internal  improvements, 
as  amounting  to  the  question  whether  the  union  of 
these  States  should  be  preserved  or  not.  ...  As 
to  the  opinion  that  the  carrying  on  of  these  improve- 
ments belonged  to  the  States  in  their  individual  and 
separate  character,  it  might  as  well  be  expected  that 
the  States  should  perform  any  other  duty  which  ap- 
pertained to  the  General  Government.  You  have  no 
more  right  ...  to  ask  the  individual  States  to 
make  internal  improvements  for  the  general  welfare 
than  you  have  to  ask  them  to  make  war  for  the  gen- 
eral welfare  or  to  build  fortifications  for  the  general 
defence. — Register  of  Debates,  I,  p.  231. 

In  Jackson's  veto  of  the  Maysville  road  ap- 
propriation, 1830,  we  read: 

[The  first  possible  line  of  objection  would  be  upon 
the  question  of  the  sovereignty  of  the  States  within 
whose  limits  improvements  are  contemplated  if  juris- 
diction of  the  territory  be  claimed  by  the  General 
Government  as  necessary  to  the  preservation  and  use 
of  the  improvements;  the  second  would  be  upon  the 
mere  question  of  right  to  appropriate  public  moneys 
for  such  objects.  So  far  the  Government  has  never 
executed  the  first  power — which  it  does  not,  in  reality, 
possess.  Long  practice  has  sanctioned  the  second; 
but  always]  professedly  under  the  control  of  the  gen- 
eral principle  that  the  works  which  might  be  thus 
aided  should  be  "of  a  general,  not  local,  national,  not 
State,"  character.  A  disregard  of  this  distinction 
would  of  necessity  lead  to  the  subversion  of  the  fed- 
eral system.  That  even  this  is  an  unsafe  one,  arbi- 
trary in  its  nature,  and  liable,  consequently,  to  great 
abuses,  is  too  obvious  to  require  the  confirmation  of 
experience.  Assuming  the  right  to  appropriate  money 
to  aid  in  the  construction  of  national  works  to  be 
warranted  by  the  contemporaneous  and  continued  ex- 
position of  the  Constitution,  its  insufficiency  for  the 
successful  prosecution  of  them  must  be  admitted  by 
all  candid  minds.  [Whether  to  enable  the  Federal 
Government  itself  to  construct  the  improvements,  or 
to  define  the  occasion,  manner,  and  extent  of  its  ap- 
propriations to  works  prosecuted  by  the  States,  it  is 


244  AMERICAN    HISTORY    STUDIES. 

true]  that  a  constitutional  adjustment  of  this  power 
upon  equitable  principles  is  in  the  highest  degree  de- 
sirable, .  .  .  nor  can  it  fail  to  be  promoted  by 
every  sincere  friend  to  the  success  of  our  political  in- 
^titutions. — Messages  and  Papers  of  the  Presidents,  II, 
pp.  483-93. 

Jackson's  message  of  December  1,  1834,  said: 

When  the  bill  authorizing  a  subscription  ...  in 
the  Maysville  &  Lexington  Turnpike  Co.  passed  the 
two  houses,  there  had  been  reported  by  the  Committee 
on  Internal  Improvements  bills  containing  appropri- 
ations for  such  objects,  exclusive  of  those  for  the 
Cumberland  road  and  for  harbors  and  light-houses,  to 
the  amount  of  about  106,000,000  of  dollars.  In  this 
amount  was  included  authority  ...  to  subscribe 
for  the  stock  of  different  companies  to  a  great  extent, 
and  the  residue  was  principally  for  the  direct  con- 
struction of  roads  by  this  Government.  In  addition  to 
these  projects  which  had  been  presented  .  .  .  there 
were  still  pending  before  the  committees  and  in 
memorials  presented,  but  not  refused,  different  projects 
.  .  .  the  expenses  of  which  .  .  .  must  have  ex- 
ceeded 100,000,000  of  dollars.  .  .  . 

Since  the  Maysville  veto  "no  attempt  .  .  .  has 
been  made  to  induce  Congress  to  exercise  this  power. 
The  applications  for  the  construction  of  roads  and 
canals  .  .  .  are  no  longer  presented;  and  we  have 
good  reason  to  infer  that  the  consent  of  public  senti- 
ment has  become  so  decided  against  the  pretension  as 
effectually  to  discourage  its  reassertion." — Messages 
and  Papers  of  the  Presidents,  III,  pp.  120-21. 

Polk,  in  his  veto,  1847,  uses  these  words: 
It  is  not  easy  to  perceive  the  difference  in  principle 
or  mischievous  tendency  between  appropriations  for 
making  roads  and  digging  canals  and  appropriations 
to  deepen  rivers  and  improve  harbors.  All  are  alike 
within  the  limits  and  jurisdiction  of  the  States.  .  .  . 
If  the  power  to  improve  a  harbor  be  admitted  it  is 
not  easy  to  perceive  how  the  power  to  deepen  every 
inlet  on  the  ocean  or  the  lakes  and  make  harbors 
where  there  are  none  can  be  denied.  If  the  power  to 
clear  out  or  deepen  the  channel  of  rivers  near  their 
mouths  be  admitted,  it  is  not  easy  to  perceive  how  the 


A    STUDY   IN    ECONOMIC    HISTORY.  245 

power  to  improve  them  to  their  fountain  head  and 
make  them  navigable  to  their  sources  can  be  denied. 
.  .  .  May  the  General  Government  exercise  power 
and  jurisdiction  over  the  soil  of  a  State  consisting  of 
rocks  and  sandbars  in  the  beds  of  its  rivers?  and  may 
it  not  execute  a  canal  around  its  waterfalls  or  across 
its  lands  for  precisely  the  same  object? — Ibid,  IV,  pp. 
612-614. 

Buchanan,  in  his  veto  of  1860,  adds: 

The  distinctive  spirit  and  character  which  pervades 
the  Constitution  is  that  the  powers  of  the  General 
Government  are  confined  ...  to  subjects  of  com- 
mon interest  to  all  the  States,  carefully  leaving  the 
internal  and  domestic  concerns  of  each  individual 
State  to  be  controlled  by  its  own  people  and  legisla- 
ture. .  .  .  Besides,  the  corrupting  and  seducing 
money  influence  exerted  by  the  General  Government 
in  carrying  into  effect  a  system  of  internal  improve- 
ments might  be  perverted  to  increase  and  consolidate 
its  own  power  to  the  detriment  of  the  rights  of  the 
States.  .  .  .  Equality  among  the  States  is  equity. 
This  quality  is  the  very  essence  of  the  Constitution. 
No  preference  can  justly  be  given  to  one  of  the  sov- 
ereign States  over  another.  .  .  .  The  truth  is  most 
of  these  improvements  are  in  a  great  degree  local  in 
their  character  and  for  the  particular  benefit  of  cor- 
porations or  individuals  in  their  vicinity,  though  they 
may  have  an  odor  of  nationality  on  the  principle  that 
whatever  benefits  any  part  indirectly  benefits  the 
whole.  Article  I,  section  10,  paragraph  3,  affords  a 
perfectly  legitimate  mode  of  acquiring  the  improve- 
ments, in  a  constitutional  manner,  by  the  States. — 
Ibid,  7,  pp.  603-5. 

QUESTIONS. 

1.  How  would  the  Americans  feel  towards  the  law 
of  1699?  2.  Why  was  bar  iron  to  be  imported  from 
America?  3.  How  would  it  be  helpful  to  the  colo- 
nists? 4.  Why  were  the  colonists  not  to  manufacture 
the  bar  iron  into  steel?  5.  What  was  to  be  done  with 
the  American  mills?  6.  How  would  such  laws  as  these 
make  the  colonists  feel  in  regard  to  the  restrictive 
system? 

1.  What  argument  does  Franklin  use  to  secure  the 
retention  of  Canada?  2.  What  industry  does  Franklin 
evidently  prefer?  3.  What  condition  results  where 


246  AMERICAN    HISTORY    STUDIES. 

manufactures  prevail?  4.  How  does  Franklin  feel 
toward  the  restrictive  system?  5.  Compare  the  ideas 
of  Franklin  and  Jefferson.  6.  Why  could  manufactures 
succeed  in  America?  7.  Did  the  statesmen,  judged  by 
the  ones  cited,  believe  in  restraints  and  discrimina- 
tions? 8.  How  would  you  account  for  their  views? 
9.  How  did  they  feel  after  about  1786?  10.  Explain  the 
reasons  for  the  change.  11.  Did  the  statesmen  like 
the  change,  or  were  they  forced  to  make  it? 

1.  Did  Hamilton  believe  in  protection  as  a  general 
principle?  2.  What  arguments  did  he  give  for  protec- 
tion? 3.  What  plans  did  Hamilton  propose  to  en- 
courage manufactures?  4.  What  position  would  he 
probably  take  now  were  he  living?  5.  Outline  the 
plan  of  Mr.  Dallas.  6.  To  what  class  of  products  did 
he  propose  to  give  aid?  7.  Why  not  aid  class  three? 

1.  What  principle  did  Webster  advocate  in  1824? 
2.  What  principle  did  Clay?  3.  What  condition  was 
the  country  in  according  to  Clay;  to  Webster?  4.  What 
remedy  did  Clay  propose  for  the  distress?  5.  How 
would  Clay  now  have  to  argue  in  regard  to  England? 
6.  Why  had  England  been  prosperous,  according  to 
Clay;  to  Webster?  7.  What  interest  was  Clay  espe- 
cially speaking  for?  What  Webster?  8.  How  do  you 
explain  the  fact  that  the  two  men  differed  so  radically 
both  in  regard  to  fact  and  theory?  9.  What  new  idea 
does  Gallatin  bring  in?  10.  What  does  he  claim  pro- 
tection must  accomplish  to  be  beneficial?  11.  Name 
the  arguments  Dallas  makes.  12.  Who  made,  in  your 
opinion,  the  ablest  argument?  Why? 

1.  What  good  did  Washington  expect  from  internal 
improvements?  2.  How  did  Jefferson  expect  to  join 
the  west  to  the  east?  3.  Did  he  believe  in  the  general 
government  undertaking  a  system  of  internal  improve- 
ments? 4.  Compare  Jefferson's  and  Hamilton's  views. 
5.  On  which  side  was  Gallatin?  6.  Was  Calhoun,  in 
1817,  a  nationalist  or  a  States  Rights  man,  judging 
from  the  extract  given?  7.  Make  a  list  of  all  the  ar- 
guments you  find  for  internal  improvements;  another 
list  of  those  against.  8.  Into  how  many  classes  did 
Jackson  divide  internal  improvements?  9.  In  what 
ways  was  it  claimed  the  nation  might  aid  internal  im- 
provements? 10.  Can  you  give  the  reasons  for  so  many 
vetoes  of  bills  for  internal  improvements?  11.  Write  a 
paper  on  the  benefits  of  a  system  of  internal  improve- 
ments. 12.  Write  one  on  the  dangers  in  it. 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 

Los  Angeles 
This  book  is  DUE  on  the  last  date  stamped  below. 


REC'O  ML0 

JUU11962 


MAR  11  1963 


Form  L9-10m-6,'52(A1855)444 


8     1963 


tlBKAKY-0/: 


A    001  252518    4 


E 

178.1 

C12s 


